[Article] McDowell wants outer ring road around Dublin

Navan Junction

Liam Reid, 19/09/2006, Irish times


PD meeting/transport policy: The Progressive Democrats have said the Government's ambitious €35 billion Transport 21 plan will need to be amended to include a commitment for an outer ring road around Dublin, linking Balbriggan, Navan and Kilcullen, Co Kildare.


Yesterday Minister for Justice Michael McDowell said the road should also be connected to a proposed site in north Dublin for a massive container port and that Dublin Port should be moved to the site.

Mr McDowell said the plan, published in detail earlier this year by the party, would free up 600 acres of port land in the city centre for redevelopment.

The proposals have been identified as a key infrastructure and transport policy for the party, and it will be holding a special conference next month to discuss the plans. However, Mr McDowell yesterday declined to comment on a key transport issue facing the Government, the funding and reform of the bus service. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have remained deadlocked on the reform and funding package, amid differences about the level of competition to be allowed in the new market.

Mr McDowell declined to say whether the party had changed its position on a requirement that up to a quarter of existing Dublin Bus routes be opened to competition.

"I don't want to pre-empt a Cabinet discussion, which is going on at the moment," he said. "I believe it's better rather than talking to you about this now, to talk about it with my Cabinet colleagues. I think a more positive outcome . . . for transport users will be obtained if we talk about this in private."

He made his comments to journalists during a break from a special PD parliamentary party "think-in" in Malahide, Co Dublin, yesterday. Describing the party's proposals for moving Dublin Port as "a much broader, more ambitious and more practical approach" than current Government policy, Mr McDowell said his party had yet to raise the issue in detail with Fianna Fáil.

However, he believed they would come round to support the plan. "I don't believe Fianna Fáil would be opposed to the issue," he said. He also rejected suggestions that the party should be trying to implement the Dublin Port and outer ring road policy within Government, instead of debating them outside.

"One of the things that's going to be increasingly the message between now and next summer is that the fact that we are in Government doesn't detract from us as an engine house for ideas and a vision for a new Ireland."

Mr McDowell said he believed the outer ring road now needed to be included as a priority along with the motorway proposals.

"The notion that the M50 is the only point of contact between the Transport 21 motorways is just increasingly unsustainable," he said.

© The Irish Times

corktina

seems a good idea on the face of it...the M50 is too close in to the city to be a true bypass....more an inner distribution road...

certainly an Airport/Port Laoise/kilkenny route would be of some use...

Bards

corktina wrote:

seems a good idea on the face of it...the M50 is too close in to the city to be a true bypass....more an inner distribution road...

certainly an Airport/Port Laoise/kilkenny route would be of some use...

The Atlantic Corridor is certaintly not too close to Dublin and forms a ring around the whole country:D

What McDowell suggests about moving Dublin Port would make the about to be opend Dublin Port Tunnel redundant before it even opens. where is the logic in that

Seriously though.. why does everything have to be centered on Dublin. Waterford Port has massive amounts of exta capacity as does Foynes in Limerick .. once the Motorway to Waterford and Limerick is complete why not move some of the container traffic away from Dublin and utilize existing infrastructure.

People on here are always suggesting that the M9 will be over engineered, but if properly utilised, and implement the Spacial Plan then the M9 will be able to cope with the extra traffic generated by the increase in volume of large HGV's

seamus

I think he wants to make Dublin look like the lost city of Atlantis from above.

I think an outer ring road styled like the M50 would be a bit of a waste of time. However more motorways/dual carriageways which don't radiate out from Dublin would be a good idea.

Certainly linking a dual carriageway from Balbriggan, through the M1, onto the M4 would sort a lot of problems. NTR wouldn't be too happy though.

murphaph

I'd like to see concrete figures for how many journeys are actually made via the M50 that originate beyond Balbriggan/Drogheda and terminate beyond Navan and Kilcullen and vice versa. I'd speculate that it's not that many, certainly not motorway volumes. Motorways are very expensive, they should only be built where the number of journeys warrant it. I'd certainly advocate the upgrading of our current (often dangerously) poor national secondary roads which already form an outer bypass of Dublin (N52, N51 and N80). The billions that a motorway would cost could upgrade these routes through realignments, widenings, some grade separation perhaps, maybe some 2+1, you know the sort of thing. The money spent on land aquisition alone would probably upgrade these routes and let's face it, they need upgrading anyway so it's not a case of one or the other.

El Stuntman

how about completing the M50 as an Eastern bypass as well?

westtip

We are going to hea so much Sh1te from these politicians over the next six months with big new ideas of what they want to see - hey they have only been in Government the last ten years what happened to all the big ideas they were going to put in place then. I wouldn't take too much notice of these grand announcements they make, which are all about raising profile in the media, gaining column inches and airtime - to the point where the sublimial message becomes - oh this is what they are going to do then. Sure McDowell going on about an outer ring road is hardly a new idea - isn't it on the drawing board under T21 anyway or at least being investigated, making the current Drogheda, Navan Mullingar road safer would probably suffice anyway.

The Swordsman

Bards wrote:

What McDowell suggests about moving Dublin Port would make the about to be opend Dublin Port Tunnel redundant before it even opens. where is the logic in that

How about using it for cars, public transport etc moving from/to the Northside to/from the Southside. It would ease a lot of the traffic around Amiens Street, East Wall etc and would save some drivers having to drive all the way around the M50.

The idea of moving Dublin Port to Balbriggan is not new. Tom Morrissey (PD councillor) has mooted it before. I don't recall all the details, but I think only container traffic would be moved - Ferries etc would stay where they are. If I recall correctly the suggestion for the DPT was that eventually an Eastern bypass would be built to connect the DPT to the Southern end of the M50 and Dublin would then have a full ring road.

road_high

Bards wrote:

Seriously though.. why does everything have to be centered on Dublin. Waterford Port has massive amounts of exta capacity as does Foynes in Limerick .. once the Motorway to Waterford and Limerick is complete why not move some of the container traffic away from Dublin and utilize existing infrastructure.

People on here are always suggesting that the M9 will be over engineered, but if properly utilised, and implement the Spacial Plan then the M9 will be able to cope with the extra traffic generated by the increase in volume of large HGV's

I've been saying this all along. The port in Belview is an excellent facility and the closest decent container port to Dublin and the east. With the N9 complete it will only be an houir and a half from the city and as such would be a natural choice to relieve pressure off Dublin.
Also in geographical terms it's closest to Europe. Foynes is isolated in comparison.

road_high

As for the Dublin orbital, why not just comprehensively upgrade the N80 and N52 roads to a proper standard. Thus taking the traffic away from Dubli altogether.
That said a new route form Kilcullen to Drogheda would open the area and link North nad South Leinster properly instead of being centred entirely on Dublin. Though I wouldn't be in favour of the Urban Sprawl it would cause even further into the provence.

westtip

murphaph wrote:

Motorways are very expensive, they should only be built where the number of journeys warrant it. I'd certainly advocate the upgrading of our current (often dangerously) poor national secondary roads which already form an outer bypass of Dublin (N52, N51 and N80). The billions that a motorway would cost could upgrade these routes through realignments, widenings, some grade separation perhaps, maybe some 2+1, you know the sort of thing. The money spent on land aquisition alone would probably upgrade these routes and let's face it, they need upgrading anyway so it's not a case of one or the other.

Problem is if the PDs have anything to do with it - it will be motorway they want because they will want it as a PPP, which would not be possible under the very sensible suggestions you have made to to upgrade the N52, N51 and N80 - and if these roads are upgraded to a reasonable standard it will divert traffic off the PPP roads of the m1, m4 and of course the old favourite the Cashlink bridge. An outer ring motorway is likely to cross the boyne a couple of times so there will be an opportunity to have a few toll bridges.......

- ah such joy, such vision such a bunch of bankers in charge of the country

road_high

corktina wrote:

seems a good idea on the face of it...the M50 is too close in to the city to be a true bypass....more an inner distribution road...

certainly an Airport/Port Laoise/kilkenny route would be of some use...

What route were you suggesting exactly Corktina? I would prefer to see the N80 north of PLaoise upgraded a lot to tie in with the N52 at Mulingar and tie into the M1 around Drogheda somewhere.

The Swordsman

westtip wrote:

bankers

Was that a typing error?:D

Chris_533976

An outer ringroad is needed I think.

BUT

Not a motorway, yet.

Buy enough land to MAKE a motorway, but only build one carriageway, and have 2way traffic. Cheaper, and when it gets busy, build the other.

dowlingm

Is Belview rail connected or just Waterford city docks?

spacetweek

Chris_533976 wrote:

An outer ringroad is needed I think.

BUT

Not a motorway, yet.

Buy enough land to MAKE a motorway, but only build one carriageway, and have 2way traffic. Cheaper, and when it gets busy, build the other.

I'd thought of that too. GS junctions, though.

This is common in other countries where a motorway is needed but traffic doesn't yet justify it. After 20 odd years, build the other side.

As for the new orbital, I think it should be long-fingered. There's a lot to get through in T21 as it is. It might end up "de-railing" the public transport projects.

road_high

dowlingm wrote:

Is Belview rail connected or just Waterford city docks?

Yes it is connected by rail. A large timber company uses rail to transport logs to it's plant there.Not sure if it's still actively used but the rail-line between Waterford and Rosslare passes directly through Belview.
What a great oppurtunity for freight, pity there's no will or forsight in Irish rail or government to invest in it.

Maskhadov

Im glad this has come up again.

Im not a fan of motorways but we do need a outer orbital motorway and they should press ahead with it as soon as possible.

The port should deftintely be relocated as soon as possible to north of Dublin. The port tunnel can be used as a part of the eastern bypass. It just need to be continued under the liffey past the east link and connect the the M50 south of Dublin. We get rid of the ugly east link as well !!

We should have a rise buildings like in Sidney harbour as a redevelopment for Dublin port.

Bards

If we had any foresight in this country we would be looking to ten/twenty years from now. The Celtic Tiger long gone, multinationals dwindilling in number etc.

We need to be the Atlantic Hub for Europe, just as Singapore is the Hub for Asia and Los Angelas for the U.S in terms of Shipping.

There is only one deep port big enough to take the huge Ocean going container ships in Europe. Rotterdam is too small but a newley built deep port in the Shannon Estuary could accomodate such vessles.

Build a fast Rail link to Rosslare via Bellview and then on into Wales via a Tunnel and we could handle a large amount of freight traffic for the Whole of Europe not just our little Island.

As we are at it we might as well build a New Motorway from Limerick too and run the high speed rail along it... saves on having to Comp Purchase land twice.

The import duties that this venture would bring would offset the cost of building such infrastructure.

secret_squirrel

Bards wrote:

If we had any foresight in this country we would be looking to ten/twenty years from now. The Celtic Tiger long gone, multinationals dwindilling in number etc.

We need to be the Atlantic Hub for Europe, just as Singapore is the Hub for Asia and Los Angelas for the U.S in terms of Shipping.

There is only one deep port big enough to take the huge Ocean going container ships in Europe. Rotterdam is too small but a newley built deep port in the Shannon Estuary could accomodate such vessles.

Build a fast Rail link to Rosslare via Bellview and then on into Wales via a Tunnel and we could handle a large amount of freight traffic for the Whole of Europe not just our little Island.

As we are at it we might as well build a New Motorway from Limerick too and run the high speed rail along it... saves on having to Comp Purchase land twice.

The import duties that this venture would bring would offset the cost of building such infrastructure.

Thats complete pie in the sky. The whole point of Sea Freight is to get as close as possible to your destination by Sea, not offload it ASAP and then tranship it by lorry/rail across 2 countries, through 2 tunnels.

Sheer madness

corktina

mfitzy wrote:

What route were you suggesting exactly Corktina? I would prefer to see the N80 north of PLaoise upgraded a lot to tie in with the N52 at Mulingar and tie into the M1 around Drogheda somewhere.

that would do it....actually quite a good road in parts already...

Victor

El Stuntman wrote:

how about completing the M50 as an Eastern bypass as well?

Its an idea, but it would upset many people who would otherwise vote for the minister.

antoinolachtnai

It's not just an idea to be fair. Finishing the eastern bypass to open up the port area for non-port development is basically the plan.

Zebra3

So when the outer orbital motorway is full, do we build another one from Dundalk to Rosslare via Athlone?

Happy Bertie

Zebra3 wrote:

So when the outer orbital motorway is full, do we build another one from Dundalk to Rosslare via Athlone?

It would mean that the outer orbital motorway was was a success and that the economy continued to grow. And yes build another one from Dundalk to Rosslare via Athlone, if needed. If we have to I will be thankful that the Irish economy sustained itself.

The alternative is go back to the way we were in the 80s when there wasn't a traffic problem, but everything else was bleaker. Think beans and toast for supper every night, a cold house and cold bed because most of us could not afford to keep the house warm at night.

We have 3 times the number of miles of roads per capita as the EU average, but most of them in bad condition. But on an area of tarmac basis we are just average (think narrow roads) So we need some decent cross country orbital roads.

I urge you to look at the positive side of developing new roads. Investment in roads worldwide generally yield benefits 5 times that of what is invested.

Also low pollution and zero pollution cars and trucks are on the way maybe 20 years down the line i.e. wind power can generate hydrogen by electrolysis and the hydrogen can be used in fuel cells. Those new roads will still be needed then.

Zebra3

Happy Bertie wrote:

It would mean that the outer orbital motorway was was a success and that the economy continued to grow. And yes build another one from Dundalk to Rosslare via Athlone, if needed. If we have to I will be thankful that the Irish economy sustained itself.

The alternative is go back to the way we were in the 80s when there wasn't a traffic problem, but everything else was bleaker. Think beans and toast for supper every night, a cold house and cold bed because most of us could not afford to keep the house warm at night.

We have 3 times the number of miles of roads per capita as the EU average, but most of them in bad condition. But on an area of tarmac basis we are just average (think narrow roads) So we need some decent cross country orbital roads.

I urge you to look at the positive side of developing new roads. Investment in roads worldwide generally yield benefits 5 times that of what is invested.

Also low pollution and zero pollution cars and trucks are on the way maybe 20 years down the line i.e. wind power can generate hydrogen by electrolysis and the hydrogen can be used in fuel cells. Those new roads will still be needed then.

Well, just maybe the politicans are afraid to look at the M50 and be honest and say 'we messed up'. Everyone knows how much damage is being done with the current set-up of the toll bridge. That's what needs to be changed.

This suggestion of McDowell's is merely short-term electioneering and has nothing to do with being for the benefit of the economy.

Bards

Happy Bertie wrote:

It would mean that the outer orbital motorway was was a success and that the economy continued to grow. And yes build another one from Dundalk to Rosslare via Athlone, if needed. If we have to I will be thankful that the Irish economy sustained itself.
QUOTE]


however, sustainable planning would have failed if this ever transpires. We cannot go on building semi-D's everywhere. We have to build up and create criticial mass for public transport to become a reality. We also have to stop the over dependance on Dublin and create employment oppurtunities within the other Gateway Cities to act as a counter balance to Dublin

Maskhadov

Maybe we can get Dublin looking like this in a few years providing they get their planning in gear and get rid of the port.

dowlingm

Maskhadov - except for the planning objections for those HUGE buildings, some of whom might be BIGGER THAN LIBERTY HALL!!!!!!

STRI... er NIMBY!!!!

Maskhadov

I wouldnt call that tall...

its high time we moved away from the mud walls and thatched roofs mentality in this country

scouse

The problem I have with that picture of the skyline is that it, inevitably, leads to the valuable land of Dublin Port turning into the private jetty of the rich. Meanwhile somewhere else (Bremore in this case) is dumped with all the traffic that is currently going into Dublin Port.

It seems to me that North County Dublin is getting the raw deal in all these wonderful plans - between the port and the inherent social problems that accompany them, and the new airport terminal (which will increase the amount of planes using the airspace above them) it looks like a fun time is ahead......

jlang

Maskhadov wrote:

Maybe we can get Dublin looking like this in a few years providing they get their planning in gear and get rid of the port.

Are you planning on widening the Liffey too?

The Swordsman

scouse wrote:

inherent social problems

Please explain.

Maskhadov

jlang wrote:

Are you planning on widening the Liffey too?

The liffey is wide enough at the sea. It just needs to be infilled a bit in places.

El Stuntman

Maskhadov wrote:

Maybe we can get Dublin looking like this in a few years providing they get their planning in gear and get rid of the port.

funky, I like it

can I still have my eastern bypass and a swanky metro?

i'd also like free universal pre-school child care, an end to stamp duty and cork to be removed from Ireland (prefereably by explosion)

and given the year that's in it, I'm sure I can find some desperate politico to promise me all these things...

Maskhadov

there is already a toll on the port tunnel. It can be used to pay for the rest of the eastern bypass.

Metro is being built.

Any buildings built will be private sector money. They just have to get them right height and architecturally wise.

If this was Asia those high rises would be thrown up in a few years. god knows how long it will take us.

dowlingm

Upgrade Dublin's Spike to a MEGA-Spike

I work in one of the buildings in the middle

spacetweek

Maskhadov wrote:

If this was Asia those high rises would be thrown up in a few years. god knows how long it will take us.

You talk about it like it's a given. European cities are not generally high rise. Just because Hong Kong is full of skyscrapers doesn't mean we should be.

This model of development is appropriate in a New World country where cities don't have historical cores and in Asian cities where population density is very high, but it's no panacea for cities like Dublin.

Happy Bertie

spacetweek wrote:

You talk about it like it's a given. European cities are not generally high rise. Just because Hong Kong is full of skyscrapers doesn't mean we should be.

This model of development is appropriate in a New World country where cities don't have historical cores and in Asian cities where population density is very high, but it's no panacea for cities like Dublin.

When we think about it, the challanges Dublin is going through are "pale" by comparison to obstacles many cities in other countries had to go through. I think in other counties, they spent less time talking about it and spent more time doing.
To show what I mean do a wikipedia search for roads and projects of similar size as projects in Ireland and you'll find far less articles.
Although I not saying the discussion is a bad thing, what i'm really saying is that there should be more action in relation to the amount of talk. No wonder there are so many arm chair road engineers and objectors. This makes transport leaders nervous and therefore not willing to think outside the box. What we end up with so often is a compromise that does not fulfill the initial objective (or any objective).

Chris_533976

I agree. The whole Cork-Dublin motorway should be completed in ONE section. ONE contract. Not like about 17 stupid bypasses patched together in the end.

Maskhadov

dividing the motorway up into smaller sections was SMART. If there was a cost over run for the entire project it would be a scary thought.

Redeveloping the port and building all those high rises isnt a major headache. The only thing really stopping us is finding a suitable location for Dublin port.

fly_agaric

scouse wrote:

The problem I have with that picture of the skyline is that it, inevitably, leads to the valuable land of Dublin Port turning into the private jetty of the rich...

Yep. A PD plan -> private parks, exclusive residential + office towers etc would be the goal?

A massive New York gated community-type development for the rich bang in the centre of Dublin which will look nice on approach from the air/water.

Maybe I could still be sold on it even if I doubt they'd let a scruff like me within an asses roar of the place.:)

piraka

There already is an outer orbital route, it comes down through Ratoath, Dunboyne, Maynooth and on Clane and to Sallins.

strassenwolf

Maskhadov wrote:

Maybe we can get Dublin looking like this in a few years providing they get their planning in gear and get rid of the port.

Well, do we want Dublin looking like that? While the population density in the Greater Dublin area is quite low, the Dublin City Council area already has a higher population density than, or a density comparable to, several similarly sized cities in, say, Germany. (Though Germany as a whole has a considerably higher population density than Ireland). Is it necessary to pack more people into the area controlled by the City Council?

And why would we want to get rid of the port? It's already there, and in a couple of weeks it will be directly linked to all the major motorways/dual carriageways emanating from the capital. Wouldn't we just be creating a major headache for ourselves by moving it somewhere else and starting afresh?

antoinolachtnai

Well, increasing the density makes metros and high quality public transport more viable. A city of 2 million might also be more economically vibrant. Realistically, the population is going to continue to grow.

Of course higher density doesn't necessarily mean skyscrapers.

The reason to move the port would be that the land is worth more as urban development land, especially now that it has a motorway link.

The Swordsman

antoinolachtnai wrote:

The reason to move the port would be that the land is worth more as urban development land, especially now that it has a motorway link.

Apparently, also, the port will run out of space in 2007 according to this article from the Village Magazine

http://www.villagemagazine.ie/article.asp?sid=1&sud=10&aid=1199

strassenwolf

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Well, increasing the density makes metros and high quality public transport more viable. A city of 2 million might also be more economically vibrant. Realistically, the population is going to continue to grow.

Antoin, the density in "Dublin" (i.e. the city council area) is not a problem. As I said, it is comparable to or higher than the densities of many cities in more densely populated continental European countries, such as Germany. Including many cities which have already developed successful metros or tram systems.

(Which all makes it more of a mystery why extension of the LUAS to areas like Finglas or Harold's Cross is not being prioritised. Instead, extensions through currently undeveloped parts of South County Dublin seem to be the priority:rolleyes: )

The economy of a city of 2 million would obviously be bigger than the economy of a city of just over half a million. But more "vibrant"? I wonder if this is necessarily the case.

gjim

As I said, it is comparable to or higher than the densities of many cities in more densely populated continental European countries, such as Germany.

I think that the raw figures don't tell the full story here.
The problem is the pattern of living here - the population is dispersed not clustered. The dominant form of dwelling in Dublin remains the semi-detached house or the small (one or two) story terraced house - check out google maps. Despite the huge increase of population in the greater Dublin area over the last 10 or 15 years, the population inside the M50 has barely risen at all. The increase in density brought about by the new apartment buildings in the city centre has been counter balanced by the "empty-nest" effect in many of the inner suburbs. A combination of high home ownership, high costs of trading (stamp duty, etc) means that people are generally unlikely to trade down so when their families mature they end up using one of the bedrooms in a 3 or 4 bedroom house. For example, until three years ago with a proliferation of new apartment buildings, the population of Dundrum had been falling steadily for over 10 years. The same pattern is repeated all over Dublin. Even between the canals, the population is not significantly slightly higher than it was 15 years ago. Nearly all of the population growth in Leinster has been in the satelite towns of Dublin. It is barely economic to provide comprehsive bus service for this sort of housing never mind metros and trams. We need a counterbalance to this pattern of growth.

strassenwolf

There are some excellent points there, gjim. It seems like it's only in recent years that people like Fingal County Council have been cottoning on to the importance of higher density housing, e.g., from the point of view of sustainable transport.

You point out that the population within the canals has not risen significantly in recent years. I think, though I am not sure, that the population in the entire Dublin City Council area has also not altered that much for many years. In other words, I think it's been in or around 500,000 for quite a long time.

Which makes it all the stranger that there has been no progress in developing tram lines to areas (like Finglas, Harold's Cross, etc) in the DCC area which do have densities capable of supporting them.

Unfortunately, those kind of areas have already been developed so there is now very little in the way of development levies, etc., which can be extracted from them. The priority now seems to be to build new lines (such as the Citywest LUAS or Sandyford-Bray LUAS) through areas which have not yet been developed and from which levies can be extracted in order to minimise the cost to the taxpayer.

Many older suburbs, including ones which have densities appropriate for LUAS or metro lines can, apparently, forget it.:(

Victor

strassenwolf wrote:

Which all makes it more of a mystery why extension of the LUAS to areas like Finglas or Harold's Cross is not being prioritised. Instead, extensions through currently undeveloped parts of South County Dublin seem to be the priority:rolleyes:

Does Days Hotel Rathmines hold Ard Fheiseanna?

strassenwolf

I'd imagine relatively few Ard Fheis delegates would use public transport to get to CityWest.

And even fewer now that Jim McDaid is leaving politics at the next election.:D