Funding Priorities - Road -v- Rail (split)

Navan Junction

John R wrote:

More roads=more cars. it's as simple as that. There is a case for Motorways to connect our main population centres, most of which is already in the pipeline. Beyond that we do not need motorways or dual carriageways. Im thnking of M2. M3, etc. Commuter motorways for Dublin should not be built under any circumstance.

John R wrote:

Ex-celtic tiger IT heads standing in the dole office queue reminiscing misty-eyed over their 3 hour commute from Navan in 10 mile tailbacks on the M3.

I would agree with you mainly here.

Throwing commuter motorways down is not the way forward in the sense that traffic will simply grow to fill the capacity.

However, both the N2 and the M3 will have a non commuter use to Derry and the North-West so in the broader scheme of things I wouldn't find fault with either of them as part of regional links, though I suppose you would have to accept the 2+1 or dualc arguement as well when you consider Dublin to Cork/Galway/Limerick has yet to be completed.

The real cause of the delay in construction of the M3 lies in the fact it is a toll road. It has been designed in sections so work could already be started on most of it. Dunboyne to Dunshaughlin could have started, as could south of Navan to north of Kells.

But because of the PPP/Tolling aspect, it is an all or nothing project. There is no injunction stopping construction - it is the fact that a delay in one stretch could damage the overall tolling arrangements (ie who would join the M3 at Dunshaughlin to pay a toll as far as gridlock in Blanchardstown after Clonee?) which is the problem.

I firmly believe that the M3 should have taken a more westerly route from Navan to Dunshaughlin (as the railway alignment does) as it could have linked Trim on to the M3 and catered for ALL of the towns in the Meath West area.

There is nothing significant between Dunshaughlin and Navan afterall population wise. I believe that the route (root!) of all problems has been the easterly deviated section which I reckon was chosen to keep the tolls away from Trim as it is a political powerbase hometown of a prominent government Minister from Meath.

The M3 should have catered for Trim.

Remember both the M3 and the N2(M2) were planned at the same time.

Politically, having the commuters of Trim pay a toll would have severly damaged the government candidates locally. So they are getting 2 upgraded and realigned roads instead to the N3/M3 at the Blackbull and the M4 at Kilcock.

The M3 is designed in sections as above but will be tolled at 2 points - Fairyhouse/Blackbull and just north of Navan.

One thing is absolutely certain. Commuters from Kells will have to pay 2 tolls before they leave Meath on the M3, and the same to return home in the evenings. That is a disgrace by anyones standards.

And a quick footnote - Kells has been on the bypass list since 1964 - it is a disgrace too that it hasn't been bypassed. And Diaspora you are spot on re Dunshaughlin bypass.

I would love a motorway (for non-commuter hours trips anyway - for that I'll have a railway pls) to Navan but I reckon they've made a complete balls-up of it so far. It didn't have to be and shouldn't be this messy.

Diaspora

Navan Junction wrote:

However, both the N2 and the M3 will have a non commuter use to Derry and the North-West so in the broader scheme of things I wouldn't find fault with either of them as part of regional links, though I suppose you would have to accept the 2+1 or dualc arguement as well when you consider Dublin to Cork/Galway/Limerick has yet to be completed.

Please read previous posts.

Derry including Letterkenny here

Cavan including Donegal/Fermanagh here

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.

A rail link from Navan via Drogheda and situation sorted; M3 is Westlink all over again and we all know that by 2000 the M50 was referred to as Dublins Main Street. If the M3 is completed look forward to an Ashbourne type model stretching from Clonee to Kells.

Navan Junction

Diaspora wrote:

If the M3 is completed look forward to an Ashbourne type model stretching from Clonee to Kells.

I have no problems with a Ashbourne type model in the toll sense. ie none. God, even 1 would be welcome news to the 2 planned.

I do think they've made a balls of it but at the same time I think the Government is determined to drive it through, irrespective of whther it is overkill or not.

An if it is overkill, who will feel the bill most?

I know the original plan was an upgrade of the existing road, and that that plan and the bypasses were ditched in favour of a tolling arrangment which nessessitaed the new road being a motorway.

My point was if there is going to be a motorway, then Trim should have been linked in, the tolls (if any) should have been realistic and route selection could have saved lots of hassle and unessessary expense.

And if you dispensed with the motorway option, you would still need to upgrade the N3.

In fairness, simply linking Navan back by rail without doing something road-wise wouldn't be enough.

The reality is that Navan/Kells/Virginia area has boomed, is booming and for a while anyway will continue to do so, even without a motorway.

But the strategy for Meath whether it is motorway etc does mean road and rail.

Sure, even a spur off the N2 would be welcome.

westtip

mysterious wrote:

Are you sure you meant 50,000 a "day"

The M25 is a disaster as it's one of those roads that has being so conjested for so many years that adding a lane won't do any good at this stage, M25 will clogg up as far to many roads interchange with it. I mean roads in France at that level would be at least 8 lanes if not more. It's ironic actually that nearly all inter urban motorways are 6 lanes in UK the and that's the trend. I don't see a problem in wideing them as cars are getting cleaner,and possibly more sooner than later... I'm sure I've covered everything(boredom):D

The M25 is not a disaster it is one of the most successful motorways in Europe - comparing the m25 to the m50 is simply not comparing like with like. The M25 circumnavigates one of the worlds major cities and urban areas and is available for daily use by an urban population in excess of 20 million. so lets get things in perspective, the M50 is a horse shoe around a provincial size city and urban area of about 2 million, the M50 works relatively well at non peak times but at peak times like any motorway serving any city things get slow on it. The problem of congestion on the M25 has been addressed in the past ten years, the busieset section - the south east quartile has been expanded to four lanes, with five lanes at some of the merger points on major junctions (M3, M11 and M4 interchangess), the installation of overhead gantries with cameras and very strict speed controls has improved the traffic flow on the M25. In the morning the speed limit is reduced to 50 mph and drivers are encouraged to driver between 40 and 50 to keep traffic flowing, this stops the situation of a slight clog up followed by clear patches in which people press the accelorator to try and catch up - only to run into another clog up. If you break the speed limit, believe me with the efficient ticketing system they have in the UK, you will get a ticket and three points (In the UK the whole penalty points process is managed very efficiently centrally from the Swansea DVLC centre, fortunately local authorities have nothing to do with driving licences so the system works) Of course the M25 gets busy and slow at peak times- but as said this is to be expected and it cracks me up when people complain about traffic jams at 8.30 am and 5.30 pm, that's life. The M50 is a disaster due to bad junction design (no free flow) and of course the cash-link bridge, which IMO is the main reason for the delays on the M50, but that one has been much debated.

Slice

In relation to issues regarding the M2 and M3 - it should be pointed out that both motorways do not serve any major urban centres other than Dublin and as such will only be used as a commuter routes. It will also encourage further development in areas not designated for growth in the national spacial strategy and are only a few miles apart which effectively means unnecessary duplication and use of resources that could have been better invested in the Navan rail link for example. What's more the M3 intersects the Tara-Skryne Valley - a route that we all know is highly controversial in terms of impact on environment and heritage - whatever your viewpoint on this there's undeniably been a concerted effort by the NRA to portray this issue as being heritage vs. development when in actual fact a solution that would have accomodated all concerns could have easily been forwarded at considerably lower costs by building one motorway instead of two. When you look at it from this perspective I find it hard to understand how the argument over how funds should be split between roads and public transport don't come into play.

Furthermore - the consequence of development and planning tilted in favour motorways in the whole Meath region at the detriment to public transport is that development will spread along these routes in such a fashion as to encourage calls for another orbital route around Dublin further beyond the M50 - these calls have already been made but the arguments for second orbital route will only be strenghtened by the current direction of emphasis on roads instead of rail

Metrobest

westtip wrote:

The M50 is a disaster due to ...the cash-link bridge, which IMO is the main reason for the delays on the M50, but that one has been much debated.

The Sydney Harbour Bridge is a similarly congested bridge ia tolled only on the inbound lanes, and the toll booths are positioned cleverly - they are not all lined up in a straight line; rather, they are dispersed along a stretch of road. It definately makes the traffic flow more freely.

Another idea that could work on the M50 is to remove the median from the stretch between N4 and N3 junctions. Extra lanes could be added at peak times to the relevent direction (eg. 6 lanes southbound, 3 lanes Northbound etc. ). The M50's problems are not insurmountable and many sections of it work quite well and serve their purpose.

As far as roads V rail goes, there's no point pretending that public transport can alleviate the need for cars in Ireland. Not with the kind of population density and dispersal that exists, even in our urban centres. For many people, cars are an essential mode of tranport and as a vast number of people fall into this catagory, we have no option but to give the safest and most pleasant roads to drive on.

I'm all in favour of motorways to link urban centres and I think the M3 and M2 will benefit a lot of people so the case for building them is clear cut.

Slice

As far as roads V rail goes, there's no point pretending that public transport can alleviate the need for cars in Ireland. Not with the kind of population density and dispersal that exists

That's a very reactionary approach to the issue though. If future develoment was planned in such a way as to concentrate development along transport corridors with sufficient capacity and funding with emphasis on public transport that in itself would make public transport a more viable solution

Diaspora

Whilst agreeing with you I'd go further and say that the continuation of 32,000 one off houses per year being built is simply the root cause of many of our problems.

This figure which if 3.5 people live in each house and that is conservative given that most of them seem to be in excess of 2250 sq feet then 2.81% of the population moved into one offs last year. Given that this has persisted for at least the past five years then at least 12-15% are newly settled in dispersed housing.


If this continues for another decade at least 50% of the population will live in one off houses if you accept that pre 2000 that 10% of the population already lived in one offs pre 2000 and combine that with 13% 2000-05 and 28% growth to come.

This is crazy considering that 7% of the population work in agriculture and the persistent dismantling of the CAP supports which this government has supported.

Victor

I'm not sure why we need the N2 and M3. Precious few people live at the end of them and aren't served by the M1 and M4.

Diaspora wrote:

This figure which if 3.5 people live in each house and that is conservative

I imagine 3.5 is overstated. Typical household size tend to be in the order of 3.

DerekP11

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.;)

SLICE

I like your thinking on pre planned "corridors". Unfortunetly, our Government don't. Therefore we are in the realm of adapting what CRH and FF offer us. The "real" lobby groups have billions behind them and political influence.

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)

Diaspora

Victor wrote:

I imagine 3.5 is overstated. Typical household size tend to be in the order of 3.

Agreed that median household sizes are generally two or three; but I think we are talking about the largest properties built in one offs generally.

When is the last time you saw a planning application for a one off with a floor area of less than 1000 sq feet vs median house types of apartments of 600-800 sq feet and townhouses or semis of 700-1000 sq feet.

It seems to me that if you are young or don't have a lot of money you get a small house or apartment and use public transport to commute and once you have acheived a certain status it has become the done thing to build a 2000 -3000 sq foot house miles from anywhere with both you and your partner driving in different directions and driving the family to school.

The current roads programme bias and binning of rural planning regulation has created a laisez faire culture that will come back to haunt the way this country is governed just as much as the abolition of domestic rates did in 1977.

bryanw

I don't know why the people of Meath and other surrounding counties should be sidelined because they choose (or must) live somewhere else because they can't afford a house in Dublin. Unless there is going to be a crash in property prices (which is pretty unlikely), I don't see an end people living on commuter belts.

The M3 will of course primarily serve the commuters - but there are many arguements in this topic that are similar to others. Just like people saying we shouldn't have a Metro because (they think) its only to serve the Airport and passenger numbers won't be large enough to justify it ...blah blah and so on. The M3 should cut journey times to border counties and the northwest. The M3 goes almost halfway to the border and will be a big improvment on the current M3.

I also honestly don't see why people have SUCH A HUGE PROBLEM with tolls. I would gladly pay a toll if the service (the road) being provided is a good one. Anyone who has even driven in France will know that its quite expensive to use their motorways. But the motorways are brilliant! There is little or no congestion, and most of the motorways are only 2 lanes. They are also not built as high-spec as those in Ireland or UK (but thats for a different topic). They have an effective method of tolling, which is pay-by-distance. I am aware that the whole network doesn't use this though. Almost all of the network is tolled but of course the French are smart enough not to toll the roads that are going to get congested like the ring roads. Maybe we should learn from the French.

Lets not forget that France has a huge network of motorways and also has along side it, one of the best railway systems in the world.

Slice

Isn't it the case that land in the Dublin area is being hoarded by developers even after rezoning to maintain artificially inflated prices? Isn't this in turn creating a situation where development is being encouraged further out by oppotunistic developers/landowners and county councils in the greater dublin areas?

Diaspora

bryanw wrote:

I don't know why the people of Meath and other surrounding counties should be sidelined because they choose (or must) live somewhere else because they can't afford a house in Dublin.

Sidelined from what?

This route has not been identified as a strategic national corridor in fact the strategic planning guidelines classify the county excepting Navan as an area not be developed for housing other than for local needs.

bryanw wrote:

The M3 will of course primarily serve the commuters - but there are many arguements in this topic that are similar to others. Just like people saying we shouldn't have a Metro because (they think) its only to serve the Airport and passenger numbers won't be large enough to justify it ...blah blah and so on.

Nobody is saying that the airport should not have a rail connection of some form either Luas, Dart or Metro they simply differ on the options on cost grounds. Similarly no one is saying that the N3 is acceptable

It is simply asserted that an €800m motorway is complete overkill; particularly in the context of proximity to the M2 and M4 motorways. Bypass Dunshaughlin and see what happens.

bryanw wrote:

The M3 should cut journey times to border counties and the northwest. The M3 goes almost halfway to the border and will be a big improvment on the current M3.

The Border which appears comprise mostly Fermanagh residents commuting to Cavan which peaks at 10 cars per minute.

bryanw wrote:

Lets not forget that France has a huge network of motorways and also has along side it, one of the best railway systems in the world.

France has a population in excess of 60m and no commuter only motorways.

D'Peoples Voice

Navan Junction wrote:

I firmly believe that the M3 should have taken a more westerly route from Navan to Dunshaughlin (as the railway alignment does) as it could have linked Trim on to the M3 and catered for ALL of the towns in the Meath West area.

There is nothing significant between Dunshaughlin and Navan afterall population wise. I believe that the route (root!) of all problems has been the easterly deviated section which I reckon was chosen to keep the tolls away from Trim as it is a political powerbase hometown of a prominent government Minister from Meath.

The M3 should have catered for Trim.

I agree completely, the motorway should have gone to Trim, because that would have developed the midlands.
However, I must add that from recollection, the county council put forward the routes and hold the public consultations and then decide on the final route. The NRA are just there to priortise projects and agree the budgets/timeframes etc. I don't think we can blame the NRA for the routes put forward by a county council in meath, a county council democratically elected by the people of meath!
Having said that, in what town in meath are the county council offices and will the M3 be going close to that town?

bryanw

Diaspora wrote:

Sidelined from what?

This route has not been identified as a strategic national corridor in fact the strategic planning guidelines classify the county excepting Navan as an area not be developed for housing other than for local needs.

Sorry, what I meant was the "commuters" who live in Meath who are not necessarily Meath "natives". The people who will be using the M3 to travel to Dublin everyday. They have to survive in some way, and if they want to live in Meath, they should be allowed and given the proper infrastructure to get to work...

EDIT: And the route has been identified as a National Transport Corridor under the National Spatial Strategy. Link (go2 last page map): http://www.irishspatialstrategy.ie/docs/powerpoint/protect/Dublin%20%20ME%20Region%20Roadshow.pdf

Diaspora wrote:

Nobody is saying that the airport should not have a rail connection of some form either Luas, Dart or Metro they simply differ on the options on cost grounds.

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...

Diaspora wrote:

Similarly no one is saying that the N3 is acceptable.

Somebody is: Link

Diaspora wrote:

It is simply asserted that an €800m motorway is complete overkill; particularly in the context of proximity to the M2 and M4 motorways. Bypass Dunshaughlin and see what happens.

The the upgraded part of the N2 hardly goes half way to Navan and then it's further again to Kells. Do you want to congest the M4 by putting all the N3 traffic onto it as well. The M4 carries traffic from Sligo, Mayo and Galway, as well as the other "commuter towns" along that motorway.

It's funny how people complain before things are built, but they're great after they're built. I've never heard a bad word about the last section of the M50. And lots of complaints before LUAS was finished, now it's so good, people complain that they can't get onto it because there is no capacity.

Diaspora wrote:

France has a population in excess of 60m and no commuter only motorways.

I am well aware of the population of France, thank you very much... You're missing the point I am trying to make. They have a brilliant road and rail network side-by-side, and both are heavily used. Obviously we don't have 60 million people, but we still have the same problems as the rest of the developed world. We need to move our people around, and we have to put them somewhere as well.

And in France, despite having 60m people, there is not a whole lot of congestion on their motorways. I was really trying to discuss the point people are making about tolls and what the big problem with them is.

Oh, and they do have commuter motorways, look here: http://www.viamichelin.com/viamichelin/gbr/dyn/controller/mapPerformPage?pim=true&act=RefineToMap&rnd=1153226766734&E_mg=210506200lS12J106199144604350176MAPB2C17103gbr542000130r110414240007UGFyaXM00001100&stat=ambiguous_map&strChoice=0
I haven't got time to point out the exact ones, but if you want me to I will later. Also look at some more of the major cities and you'll find some more. Every country has commuters...

Diaspora

bryanw wrote:

Sorry, what I meant was the "commuters" who live in Meath who are not necessarily Meath "natives". The people who will be using the M3 to travel to Dublin everyday. They have to survive in some way, and if they want to live in Meath, they should be allowed and given the proper infrastructure to get to work...

The scarcity of resources as identified by Adam Smith almost 250 years ago dictates that if you get this vanity project tens of thousands of people at other locations will be denied much more valid projects.

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.

bryanw wrote:

The the upgraded part of the N2 hardly goes half way to Navan and then it's further again to Kells. Do you want to congest the M4 by putting all the N3 traffic onto it as well. The M4 carries traffic from Sligo, Mayo and Galway, as well as the other "commuter towns" along that motorway.

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.

bryanw wrote:

It's funny how people complain before things are built, but they're great after they're built. I've never heard a bad word about the last section of the M50. And lots of complaints before LUAS was finished, now it's so good, people complain that they can't get onto it because there is no capacity.

The construction of Luas was a farce I never questioned the quality of the end product even before it opened.

bryanw wrote:

I am well aware of the population of France, Oh, and they do have commuter motorways, look here: http://www.viamichelin.com/viamichelin/gbr/dyn/controller/mapPerformPage?pim=true&act=RefineToMap&rnd=1153226766734&E_mg=210506200lS12J106199144604350176MAPB2C17103gbr542000130r110414240007UGFyaXM00001100&stat=ambiguous_map&strChoice=0
I haven't got time to point out the exact ones,

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

markpb

bryanw wrote:

Sorry, what I meant was the "commuters" who live in Meath who are not necessarily Meath "natives". The people who will be using the M3 to travel to Dublin everyday. They have to survive in some way, and if they want to live in Meath, they should be allowed and given the proper infrastructure to get to work...

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?

The government cannot make decisions based soley on peoples feelings - there has to be some element of logic and feasibility. 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.

It's funny how people complain before things are built, but they're great after they're built. I've never heard a bad word about the last section of the M50. And lots of complaints before LUAS was finished, now it's so good, people complain that they can't get onto it because there is no capacity.

There's no correlation between public acceptance of a government project and its feasibility. Just because people like the end result does not mean the government should spend vast sums of money giving it to them. I do think the Luas was worthwhile but I don't think it was properly built or well scoped which is why we have the capacity issues we do today.

I think we should definitely have a metro with the coverage and frequency of the London Underground but it won't happen because it isn't feasible - cost benefit analysis is essential.

Navan Junction

Diaspora wrote:

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

Similarly, Navan is brutal to get through.

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

To sort out the Meath portions you are talking about significant work on the N3:

1) Where the N3 singles at Clonee
2) Dual-c to from Clonee to Blackbull and flyovers
3) Bypass of Dunshaughlin
4) Bypass of Navan
5) Bypass of Kells

That would be a 'do minimum' strategy

However, there are newly aligned roads being built around the country so why not do more than just bypass Dunshaughlan?

I accept the whole M3 project is over engineered and that the M2/M3 are too close and there is an element of overlap.

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

And I think that it is often forgotten that it doesn't have to be a motorway to have 2 lanes, though I would imagine a serious difference in cost.

Re route selection, it was designed by MCC. I know.:rolleyes:

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.. And bear in mind, you are talking about 2 full tolls each way from Kells, each day. Nowhere else has that imposed.

I would have to ask the question would the savings in simply making the M3 a dual-c have saved enough to negate the need for tolling?

Irrespective of this debate though, the M3 looks destined to plow ahead as planned - to a great extent this debate seems academical.

Slice

I do think the Luas was worthwhile but I don't think it was properly built or well scoped which is why we have the capacity issues we do today.

I would disagree. 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). I'm mainly talking about the orbital Metro that's proposed, it strikes me to be a waste that can be compared to the duplication of motorways in the form of M2/M3. Again, getting back to the point it's money that could be better spent on the Navan rail link as an example (i'm not suggesting it should be though).

Although their routes are drastically different - the completion of a Dart service to Maynooth and Hazelhatch (via interconnector) raises the question just how many orbital rail routes does Dublin need? The only similar example I can think of being the North London Line in a city with a far bigger population shows that orbital rail routes rarely compete with the rail patronage of radial routes. Where the Luas falls down is in the length of the two lines - There should be more Luas lines covering shorter distances. 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.

Getting back to the issue of how funds should be allocated and the point raised by DerekP11 previously - I am definately of the opinion that public transport would get a better airing if there was greater accountability of Government over wastage in terms of road building and to deal with the reality that building more roads leads to more congestion and poor planning. Instead there appears in many circles to be silent complicity on the issue.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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....

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.