Outer Orbital Road

DerekP11

NRA today proclaimed that the outer orbital road is an economically sound proposal and have told the Government so.

Its to run from the M1 south of Dundalk to the M9 in Kilcullen, Co. Kildare. 9crossing the N2/3/4/7/9. According to the NRA spokesman, the M50 will be "functional" once the upgrade is finished. He also went on to say that "the M50 wasn't design as a motorway, it was designed as a by pass. Once the upgrade is finished it will be motorway standarded."

What a ****ing muppet we have representing the road building agency. His interview on radio tonight was riddled with misinformation and downright ignorance and contempt for the irish public.

According to him, the M50 is not a motorway, but it will be soon! So its the N50. Right?:D

As for this orbital road.....oh its such a lazy solution. What will the Greens in Government say about it, I wonder?

Slice

Yea I read the article in the paper today about it; it's a complete joke - he's promising everything about the outer orbital road that the M50 is now. Just to recap the M50 was billed as a motorway bypass of Dublin and interchange of the national road network specifically designed for national journeys. Today it's another commuter run of the city because of poor planning. Now Fred Barry, Chief Executive of the NRA, said this about the outer orbital road;

"There is already quite a bit of traffic looking to use the local and regional roads out in those areas. There are quite a few areas that a couple of years ago would have been quiet country roads and are now commuter runs."

...So in effect he's dispensing with the promises on this new road that were used to justify the construction of the M50.

Just as an aside; Derek you seem to have changed your tune - I don't ever recall you being so anti-NRA before when pressed on it.

Skyhater

Yea!!! Heard his interview this evening on the last word..... He sounded like such a Muppet!!!

I do think an outer motorway isn't a bad idea in itself. There is alot of traffic on the country roads and national secondary roads along this route.
HOWEVER!!! It must come with proper planning.... In 25 years time the M51 (or whatever they call it), could represent the edge of Dublin while the M50 becomes an inner city motorway!

Also, Toll it (....with a Government collected toll), and pump the money into public transport!!! (Just like they should do with all the current motorways)

murphaph

How about upgrading the N51, N52, N80 and the numerous R roads to a minimum safe standard instead of wasting hundreds of millions on a motorway that WILL cause more sprawl as councillors seem incapable of refusing to rezone land!

Terrontress

Why should motorways be tolled? After paying VAT, VRT, road fund, duty on fuel, tax on insurance, tax on repairs should we not be entitled to use the roads for free? The tolls already collected are massive in terms of the bridges. Compare the Forth bridge in Scotland at 50p each way with Dublin's East Link. Just because it can raise to accommodate boats it is seen as special and a toll stuck on it!

Niall1234

Skyhater wrote:

I do think an outer motorway isn't a bad idea in itself. There is alot of traffic on the country roads and national secondary roads along this route.
HOWEVER!!! It must come with proper planning.... In 25 years time the M51 (or whatever they call it), could represent the edge of Dublin while the M50 becomes an inner city motorway!

You expected Dublin to turn into the Tokyo - Yokohama metropolis over the next 25 years ?

Can't wait to see the necessary fertility rates.

Skyhater

Niall1234 wrote:

You expected Dublin to turn into the Tokyo - Yokohama metropolis over the next 25 years ?
Can't wait to see the necessary fertility rates.

Well maybe I'm a little bit off when i say 25 years..... But you know what i mean!!!

Skyhater

Terrontress wrote:

Why should motorways be tolled? After paying VAT, VRT, road fund, duty on fuel, tax on insurance, tax on repairs should we not be entitled to use the roads for free? The tolls already collected are massive in terms of the bridges. Compare the Forth bridge in Scotland at 50p each way with Dublin's East Link. Just because it can raise to accommodate boats it is seen as special and a toll stuck on it!

Tolls are a good idea when they are ring-fenced for specific projects. For example if the Toll on the N3 was used to fund the Navan Rail link..... Once it's paid for..... Remove the toll!!!!

You mention cheep tolls in the UK..... Cheep tolls tend to be the exception.
In my experience driving in Europe, North America and Asia....Irish tools are below average price. Japan can be up to €40!!!!

I do think other non tangible Taxes (Car Tax, etc) should be reduced or even scrapped.

Saruman

Skyhater wrote:

HOWEVER!!! It must come with proper planning....

I believe he said that it would need 6 years of planning, 2 more than it would take to construct

Yes this is needed, The M50 is already just an urban motorway. There is no need for traffic to come anywhere near Dublin if they are trying to get elsewhere. It would also take people off the dangerous roads like the N51 N52.... they are lethal and used by a lot of traffic.

I did not think he was talking crap. He was pretty much saying exactly what you complainers are saying. The m50 was badly designed and even worse planning after it was built has seen it become the car park it is today.
I do not think any motorway in the country, no matter how little used should be 4 lanes, it should be 6 lanes (3 each way) with trucks banned from the outside lane completely and instant points for using it.

Also why do we insist on building all roads at ground level? We are the only country i have ever been to that does that. Even the UK have copped on that building raised roads using bridges (and public transport) off the ground makes more sense. It may not be the most attractive to look at but its better.

loyatemu

is there actually that much traffic trying to get from Dundalk, Newry, Belfast to the south of the country?

I mean, I'm sure theres some, but enough to justify ploughing a brand new motorway through the countryside? Would a substantial upgrade of the N52 and N80 not suffice?

paulm17781

Saruman wrote:

Also why do we insist on building all roads at ground level? We are the only country i have ever been to that does that. Even the UK have copped on that building raised roads using bridges (and public transport) off the ground makes more sense. It may not be the most attractive to look at but its better.

This puzzles me too. Rail and road should all be totally segregated. I think Ireland must be one of the few countries in the world that insists on putting everything on ground level.

OTK

The NRA has a vested interest in finding that road projects are viable. Without road projects, the NRA might not be viable.

Meath gets its fifth commuter motorway and many more acres of tickytack housing estates.

Terrontress

Skyhater wrote:

Tolls are a good idea when they are ring-fenced for specific projects. For example if the Toll on the N3 was used to fund the Navan Rail link..... Once it's paid for..... Remove the toll!!!!

You mention cheep tolls in the UK..... Cheep tolls tend to be the exception.
In my experience driving in Europe, North America and Asia....Irish tools are below average price. Japan can be up to €40!!!!

I do think other non tangible Taxes (Car Tax, etc) should be reduced or even scrapped.

Tolls are simply another form of taxation in a country where we pay some of the highest combined vehicle taxation in the world.

I think for an impressive infrastructural project, tolls can be acceptable. With the exception of the Port Tunnell, all tolls in Ireland are on fairly run of the mill, if not sub-standard roads.

Any additional motorways are being built to take the pressure off ancient tracks. If we, as road users, were to refuse to use the new schemes then the roads, which we have paid our road tax for, would not be able to cope.

I have paid large tolls on the East Coast of Spain where there was a viable alternative and the road involved was bored through a mountain.

What we will find with future toll roads in Ireland will be motorways, considered basic compared to our European counterparts, with high tolls compared to the cost of construction of the project.

dowlingm

raised roads do introduce noise issues though.

JupiterKid

There is a need for a road to bypass the M50 and take Cork-Belfast traffic away from Dublin, but I'm not sure if this proposed "outer orbital motorway" is the right route. In Boston, they built a second, outer ring of the city in the 70s and it just became a magnet for more urban sprawl so the planning will have to be very tight or else the new motorway will only serve to create more urban sprawl.

Why build motorways up on bridges if they can go on the ground? First, raised motorways are very unsightly, second it's much more costly, and third the UK and other countries abandoned building these types of motorway in the 70s, in favour of trenched and depressed sections instead.

DerekP11

Slice wrote:

Just as an aside; Derek you seem to have changed your tune - I don't ever recall you being so anti-NRA before when pressed on it.

Im not anti-NRA. I don't support this project and I was disappointed by some of the comments made by the NRA rep on the last word. I do support the building of the inter urbans routes, but I think the upgrading of existing cross radial routes would be a more effective. In fact a 2+1 new build linking the trunk routes and allowing travel between the inter urbans would be a better endeavour. Call it a central spine route.

Skyhater

DerekP11 wrote:

In fact a 2+1 new build linking the trunk routes and allowing travel between the inter urbans would be a better endeavour.

I'm sorry Derek (I normally agree with you 100%), but the words "2+1" and "new build" should never be used in the same sentence!!!!
2+1's should only be used as a cost efficient method of improving safety on existing single carriageways.
New 2+1 builds are an extremely inefficient use of money. Spending a little bit more on a new "2+2" or "semi-grade separated DC" dramatically increases capacity and safety.

westtip

murphaph wrote:

How about upgrading the N51, N52, N80 and the numerous R roads to a minimum safe standard instead of wasting hundreds of millions on a motorway that WILL cause more sprawl as councillors seem incapable of refusing to rezone land!

Exactly this is all that is required, when we wake up from this nightmare and realise we are only a small country of 5 million or so people and our population does not require motorways to every outpost of the state - but good quality safe national roads which don't go through small towns then so much the better. Murphagh you mention the N51 - this road is a deathtrap in places but in parts has had the upgrading treatment to wide two lane with hard shoulder, if it were this standard along its whole route this would be perfectly acceptable, the same applies to the N52 and N80. We need to get a grip on ourselves, there is a kneejerk reaction at present that if there is a traffic jam on some wee boreen we should build a motorway, they are simply not needed HQDC on interurban, and upgraded national routes allowing safe free flow of traffic avoiding town centres is fine, or even 2+1 on the slightly busier national roads.

bk

Well if they do move Dublin Port out of Dublin, up by Balbriggan, it does make some sense. Trucks heading for elsewhere around the country could completely avoid Dublin and the M50.

Of course as others have said planning permission should be very strict along it in order to stop the further outward development of Dublin, however a few sites should be designated for freight shorting and distribution.

Of course such a road won't be built for many years. This is just the NRA laying the ground work for post T21 projects in order to stay relevant.

Expect to hear a lot about this, the eastern bypass and the northern ring road in Cork. These are all the big post T21 projects.

Chris_533976

Yeah the Cork NRR. By the looks of the plans it could be quite interesting, but very expensive. Think tunnels and bridges galore.

markpb

bk wrote:

Of course as others have said planning permission should be very strict along it in order to stop the further outward development of Dublin, however a few sites should be designated for freight shorting and distribution.

Does anyone actually believe this fallacy? Have we _ever_ exercised proper planning with proper planning enforcement?

bk

markpb wrote:

Does anyone actually believe this fallacy? Have we _ever_ exercised proper planning with proper planning enforcement?

No, we haven't, I'm just saying what should be done.

Perhaps the greens can exert some pressure on FF's usual developer friendly feelings :eek:

Slice

The problem with road planning and construction being hived off to the NRA while other agencies and semi-states are responsible for other aspects of transport such as the DAA, CIE and the RPA is that no one will be inclined to ask the question; what mode of transport is best suited to solving the problem?

The NRA will look at traffic congestion and see more roads as the only solution; when this isn't necessarily always the right solution

DerekP11

Skyhater wrote:

I'm sorry Derek (I normally agree with you 100%), but the words "2+1" and "new build" should never be used in the same sentence!!!!
2+1's should only be used as a cost efficient method of improving safety on existing single carriageways.
New 2+1 builds are an extremely inefficient use of money. Spending a little bit more on a new "2+2" or "semi-grade separated DC" dramatically increases capacity and safety.

Nenagh bypass as one example, despite its planned upgrade. I recall other examples of new builds that are 2+1. And I disagree that they are an inefficient use of money as they can be built with semi grade seperation anyway. For example semi grade seperation exists on the Claremorris bypass, Nenagh bypass, Moone/Timolin bypass. Its a long list. Loads of examples. Avoids very costly CPOs without the cost of DC. Suitable for the route Im referring to. C'mon Skyhater, don't break a 100% trend.:D

Skyhater

DerekP11 wrote:

Nenagh bypass as one example, despite its planned upgrade. I recall other examples of new builds that are 2+1. And I disagree that they are an inefficient use of money as they can be built with semi grade seperation anyway. For example semi grade seperation exists on the Claremorris bypass, Nenagh bypass, Moone/Timolin bypass. Its a long list. Loads of examples. Avoids very costly CPOs without the cost of DC. Suitable for the route Im referring to. C'mon Skyhater, don't break a 100% trend.:D

I guess it will have to be moved to 99.9%

I didn't say 2+1 new builds didn't exist..... One is the Castleblayney Bypass which will open very soon.
But... With new builds the NRA have to go through a CPO process anyway, what's another couple of Metres and give us a 2+2? Improving safety and capacity.

2+1's do improve safety, but only slightly improves capacity and can result in GridLock when traffic vols are high.
But... They avoid CPO's, etc. when upgrading existing roads.
(I think bringing up CPO's have helped my argument)

Grade sperated junctions are a different matter. You can have these on SC's. 2+1's, 2+2's, DC's, etc. They dramatically improve safety and also help traffic flow.

C'mon Derek....Agree with me and we can move back to 100%

Slice

Why are so many of us against 2+1? Their safety record is close to motorway standards even in Ireland.

Skyhater

Slice wrote:

Why are so many of us against 2+1? Their safety record is close to motorway standards even in Ireland.

I'm not saying I'm against SC upgrades to 2+1's..... I'm saying I'm against New Build 2+1's!!!

bk

Slice wrote:

Why are so many of us against 2+1? Their safety record is close to motorway standards even in Ireland.

No one is against 2+1 as such. Rather if it only costs 10% more to build 2+2 then we should spend the extra money for the increased capacity.

Sure if we can only afford 2+1, then that is much more preferable then SC, however for just a 10% saving it looks like penny pinching.

Maskhadov

we dont need an outer orbital motorway, we need an eastern bypass and better public transport.

DerekP11

Skyhater wrote:

I guess it will have to be moved to 99.9%

I didn't say 2+1 new builds didn't exist..... One is the Castleblayney Bypass which will open very soon.
But... With new builds the NRA have to go through a CPO process anyway, what's another couple of Metres and give us a 2+2? Improving safety and capacity.

2+1's do improve safety, but only slightly improves capacity and can result in GridLock when traffic vols are high.
But... They avoid CPO's, etc. when upgrading existing roads.
(I think bringing up CPO's have helped my argument)

Grade sperated junctions are a different matter. You can have these on SC's. 2+1's, 2+2's, DC's, etc. They dramatically improve safety and also help traffic flow.

C'mon Derek....Agree with me and we can move back to 100%

Oh what the hell. Ok then.
In a few weeks I'll be stepping back from all this transport baloney anyway.;)

Skyhater

DerekP11 wrote:

Oh what the hell. Ok then.
In a few weeks I'll be stepping back from all this transport baloney anyway.;)

Yea Derek. Read that on the P11 forum. Good luck with everything. Hope you'll keep posting!!!!.... We all value your insight and opinions. (I know you probably couldn't resist anyway....)