Ireland fails to plan yet again

fricatus

invincibleirish wrote: »

Is there anywhere in the UK as small as say oh i dont know, Waterford...

I see you're back up on your anti-Waterford hobby horse again. Any chance you might bash somewhere else for a change? You're like a broken record, butty. :rolleyes:

r3nu4l

invincibleirish wrote: »

Perhaps we're looking at it from a wrong point of view. Is there anywhere in the UK as small as say oh i dont know, Waterford which has a full Motorway Bypass, and in time the option of 2 toll free Motorways/DCs linking with the capital?, is there anywhere in the UK as tiny as Claremorris which enjoys such excellent rail connections? is there any part of the UK which is as densely populated as the west with an option of so many airports to use?

Not sure but let's look at it yet another way. I've lived in Cambridge and worked in London in the past. Therefore there is a real need for the infrastructure that currently exists (road and rail) as Cambridge is in itself a commuter city for London as well as having it's own indigenous industries that attract workers from smaller towns to Cambridge.

So, I'm sure that there are plenty of people living in Waterford that work in Cork and vice-versa, what's wrong with providing those commuters (and the towns en route) with decent infrastructure and transport links? Until that happens the major urban centres will remain the big draw for big industries. Having decent infrastructure between smaller cities in Ireland will encourage more industry for those areas and help stem the drain of people from these cities to Dublin. Dublins infrastructure cannot cope with the amount of people in the city and it will only get worse, not better.

AugustusMaximus

invincibleirish wrote: »

Perhaps we're looking at it from a wrong point of view. Is there anywhere in the UK as small as say oh i dont know, Waterford which has a full Motorway Bypass, and in time the option of 2 toll free Motorways/DCs linking with the capital?, is there anywhere in the UK as tiny as Claremorris which enjoys such excellent rail connections? is there any part of the UK which is as densely populated as the west with an option of so many airports to use?

We dont like proper planning in Ireland do we? Infrastructure is there to be fought and won for by politicians, who cares about congestion and public transport in the urban areas when whats important is to get our own shiny Railway/Motorway to our place in the sticks, irrespective of cost or need, thats not important.

You're nothing but a troll, looking for a reaction with your persistent anti-Waterford stance.

Lennoxschips

So, I'm sure that there are plenty of people living in Waterford that work in Cork and vice-versa, what's wrong with providing those commuters (and the towns en route) with decent infrastructure and transport links?

You're sure there are plenty?

How many people exactly are living in Waterford city and working in Cork city? 10? 20?

Should we be pursuing a policy that actively encourages massive commutes?

Have we all gone mad?

How about we create jobs in Waterford for the people living in Waterford? And build houses in Cork for the people working in Cork?

Lennoxschips

My comparison still stands, as I included only the city boundary of Cambridge and not places like Cambourne, Milton, etc... Add another 150000 or more. Either way my point stands, if Cambridge can be served by a proper motorway and two DCs why the hell can't a quaint little burg like Cork??

Firstly, the M11 is a feeder motorway for one of the largest cities on the planet. It links London to the north and northeast, including Stansted airport. It happens to go past Cambridge.

And despite this, Cork already has more dual carriageway than Cambridge. There is the South Ring stretching from Bishopstown to Dunkettle (including a tunnel scheme), the dual carriageway to Middleton and a motorway to Dublin. Then there's dual carriageway as far as Blarney as well.

What Cambridge does have is a decent bus system, with dedicated bus lanes being built all over the place. Cork doesn't have that at all.

invincibleirish

Lennoxschips wrote: »

And despite this, Cork already has more dual carriageway than Cambridge. There is the South Ring stretching from Bishopstown to Dunkettle (including a tunnel scheme), the dual carriageway to Middleton and a motorway to Dublin. Then there's dual carriageway as far as Blarney as well.

What Cambridge does have is a decent bus system, with dedicated bus lanes being built all over the place. Cork doesn't have that at all.

Indeed, but whats really happened is that we've spent billions over a very long time on a never ending roads programme which is only now finishing its first phase. Public transport spending has been miniscule in comparison, off the top of my head but isnt the number of people using Public Transport to get to/from work in the single % figures?.

Yet the country, and in particular the urban areas are as gridlocked as ever, the most effective measure that seems to be reducing congestion is economic recession!

I just get the impression that we as a nation will realise that the last 10 years of lavish spending could have been spent better and more efficiently.

BrianD

E92 wrote: »

I know that but what we save by this cheaper design today we pay tomorrow bigtime because with lower speed limits we can't get about our business as quickly, making us less competitive. Besides, its not like a Standard DC can carry more traffic than a HQDC(Motorway), or indeed vice versa.

Anyway, a standard DC is built to the same standards other than the design speed and exits.

Standrd DC's with grade separated junctions are more than adequate for this country. The truth is that beyond J4 on the M1, it's an under utilised road. Same applies elsewhere in the country. Put extra lanes in urban areas and it's just an extra lane backed up.

Even if our populatio was to go back up to pre-famine levels these standard DC's would be more than able to cater for traffic. With the price and future availability of fuel in question, it's likely we will see a reduction in traditional cars. I'm not sure if electric models can hit 120K yet and if they are efficient at this speed.

The higher speed of a m-way does not make us more competitive or speed up business. Feight is moved by trucks which are speed limited by law - 80KPH - same with buses. You would have to be a long distance commuter for the higher speed limit to make much of a difference to your commute.

L1011

There is an electric car which can reach 201km/h - and thats speed limited.

BluntGuy

M6, M7, M8... I support them all in their current format. M9, I'm half in support of (it's not being anti-Waterford), it's just my own opinion.

On the M8 the other day during rush-hour near Mitchelstown, the sheer amount of traffic made me realise why the road was necessary. Honestly, for a moment I thought it was busy enough to be D3M. It was certainly more traffic than the old N8 could've handled.

I just wish we had a motorway network rather than just motorways. I don't see the point in building miles of high-quality road and then not connecting them properly. Think M7/M9, think M7/M8, think M50/M1, think N8/N25... all atrociously connected.

And before anybody says why we need so many motorways compared to the UK. Compare and contrast. The UK has a very decent A-road network, we, by comparison do not.

If the majority of the national primary and national secondary routes were of at least a decent S2 or WS2 standard, perhaps I would be looking at this differently. As it stands, motorways are the safest, quickest way of transporting people from A to B. And let's not even bring the R and L routes into this *shudder*.

Also, just to put things in perspective, the AADT capacity of a good single-carriageway is roughly 9000 (not the rubbish we generally have here - I'm thinking of roads like the Moone bypass, Cahir bypass etc.). A D2M motorway is roughly 52,000 (98,000 for D3M). A 2+2 is roughly 20000 (maybe 25,000, I can't remember of the top of my head).

invincibleirish

BluntGuy wrote: »

M6, M7, M8... I support them all in their current format. M9, I'm half in support of (it's not being anti-Waterford), it's just my own opinion.

On the M8 the other day during rush-hour near Mitchelstown, the sheer amount of traffic made me realise why the road was necessary. Honestly, for a moment I thought it was busy enough to be D3M. It was certainly more traffic than the old N8 could've handled.

I just wish we had a motorway network rather than just motorways. I don't see the point in building miles of high-quality road and then not connecting them properly. Think M7/M9, think M7/M8, think M50/M1, think N8/N25... all atrociously connected.

And before anybody says why we need so many motorways compared to the UK. Compare and contrast. The UK has a very decent A-road network, we, by comparison do not.

If the majority of the national primary and national secondary routes were of at least a decent S2 or WS2 standard, perhaps I would be looking at this differently. As it stands, motorways are the safest, quickest way of transporting people from A to B. And let's not even bring the R and L routes into this *shudder*.

Also, just to put things in perspective, the AADT capacity of a good single-carriageway is roughly 9000 (not the rubbish we generally have here - I'm thinking of roads like the Moone bypass, Cahir bypass etc.). A D2M motorway is roughly 52,000 (98,000 for D3M). A 2+2 is roughly 20000 (maybe 25,000, I can't remember of the top of my head).

Bluntguy we would have had a complete Motorway network by now if the Interurban schemes had been rationalised. Instead we have a situation where duplicate Motorways cross the Leinster and Munster countryside all within short distances of each other(and not properly connected like or M7/M9 on the M7/M8 scheme not being able to go from M8 to the M7 Limerick direction without incurring a double toll).

With a rationalised network not as many towns would have been bypassed, but as national traffic was removed, either traffic would calm down, or if congestion still continued, a single carriageway bypass or 2+2 might be more appropriate?.

I mention all this with a public transport slant, all the cities have a public transport deficit, public transport just is not an option for most in this country(i acknowledge poor planning is part of this). there has been more spent on Roads then bus or Rail over the past decade but for the enormous sum spent are we getting value for money? i dont think so.

Amtmann

Hm. Anyone who thinks we don't need an M8 obviously doesn't drive the road on weekdays.

BluntGuy

Furet wrote: »

Hm. Anyone who thinks we don't need an M8 obviously doesn't drive the road on weekdays!

And that shot was taken nearer the time of opening. I know from driving the M8 on a regular basis that it's even busier than that.

The N8 really did need to be replaced.

Lennoxschips

Doesn't look very busy to me.

(by the way, looking at that photo, i'm not too impressed at how the road bends outwards to accomodate overpass columns)

Amtmann

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Doesn't look very busy to me.

Well, take all that traffic off the big broad motorway and put it back onto the old N8 and it will be both busy and dangerous. As BluntGuy says, it does get busier - a lot busier. We don't have many pictures of the M8 online to choose from.

Ideology doesn't really inform my view of road policy so much as safety does. And anyway, if the M8 were a lot busier, I'm sure that would displease you too.

(by the way, looking at that photo, i'm not too impressed at how the road bends outwards to accomodate overpass columns)

I agree with this.

BluntGuy

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Doesn't look very busy to me.

But as Furet said, try and shove all that traffic back onto an S2 with no hard shoulder and things aren't looking good.

...i'm not too impressed at how the road bends outwards to accomodate overpass columns.

Neither am I. I'm not sure why it was done this way, and I don't think this weird phenomenon occurs on the Fermoy bypass (which was obviously constructed using the same techniques).

The bend isn't quite hazardous enough to necesitate a slow down from 120 km/h though.

I'd be more concerned about the poor visibility at junctions and on bends. The stretch is bendy so it NEEDS reflectors on the concrete median. It also requires MOTORWAY STANDARD lighting at junctions. Junctions 11 and 12 are particularly bad for lighting.

Lennoxschips

Ideology doesn't really inform my view of road policy so much as safety does.

Just because parts of the old N8 were unsafe and old, that doesn't necessarily mean you need a full blown motorway.

There are plenty of countries that can build safe 2+1 roads (i.e. Sweden) for exactly this purpose. That's what you'd build if safety was your number one priority.

Building a motorway instead is very much an ideology influenced road policy.

Neither am I. I'm not sure why it was done this way, and I don't think this weird phenomenon occurs on the Fermoy bypass (which was obviously constructed using the same techniques).

I think the bit were you veer out for the column should have been started much further out and much more gradually. On the photo it looks quite sharp. And in that photo it's particularly bad as there's another bridge just further out, yet the road narrows back in again and veers out again at the next bridge, when it could have just stayed wider between the bridges.

Danno

The N8 needed to be replaced by the M8. The sooner it finishes right up to the M7 the better. Everyday the traffic on the N8 just seems to be increasing and increasing.

AugustusMaximus

It actually still amazes me at times that the gov actually got off their arses and did something correctly for once.

In the past they would have just done short bypasses for each town and left it at that.

With these interurbans, we have planned ahead for at least 30 years. I'm quite rightly staggered too by the sensible gov decision to redesignate all the HQDC sections to motorway. Amazing. Is this Ireland ?

The one drawback are the linking junctions. The M4/M6, M7/M8 and M7/M9 junctions should be freeflow in all movements.


I'm also glad that the interurbans were built following the old N roads. Due to this, it means that a great deal of towns, especially in the midlands have direct motorway access in and out of them. This potentially means more motorway usage and ultimately (hopefully) a localised reduction in road deaths.

G_R

what amazes me is that some poeple actually object to the M8 or any other of the MIU schemes.

have u been in abbeyleix, durrow, urlingford etc etc between 8-10am and 4-6pm any evening (except possibly sunday). These towns absolutley has to be bypassed and while no one (i think) is diputing that it would have been stupid to bypass with anything less than motorway because:

HQDC- stupid idea and should never have been considered in the first place - motorway without restrictions - joke - just a goldmine for corrupt politicians.

standard DC - will have to be upgraded sometime in the future (traffic levels will only grow)

standard single carriage way - same as for standard DC only worse

2+1 roads - these roads are stupid and should never be used (even if the majority of Irish drivers could drive on them properly)

and also the idea of going from main road, to bypass, to main road, to bypass would be a joke. full stop.

we need to have our main cities/towns connected to the capital by a decent road network if we want those areas to develop. One of the ways this has to be done is a high quality road.motorway network connecting all regions/areas of the country to each other as well as dublin.

I know people will prob start saying now "a jaysus with the recession we cant be affording them things" but if we want to be ready for the upturn when it comes (hopefully sooner rather than later) then we have to get essential infrustructure (ie. roads rail essential services etc) in place.

BluntGuy

Lennoxschips wrote: »

There are plenty of countries that can build safe 2+1 roads (i.e. Sweden) for exactly this purpose. That's what you'd build if safety was your number one priority.

I find Ireland's 2+1 roads awful. Maybe if they had some GSJs and a concrete step barrier I'd find them acceptable. Instead they have that horrible wire-barrier which "flicks" light in your face at regular intervals making it difficult to drive in the dark and slices motorcyclists to bits upon impact.

2+2 is the best compromise between S2 and a full-blown motorway. But I'm not a fan of 2+2 myself, as the land-take is nearly as high as a full-blown DC anyway.

Anyway, my primary rationale for building roads as motorway is the higher-speed limit and the additional safety offered by the restrictions. Capacity is very weird issue in this country. We have large stretches of "empty" (for lack of a better word) motorway. But I'm afraid that has to be the case. You can't build 5 miles of motorway, stop and then build another stretch 3 miles down the line. That's insanity. Motorways have to be continous, and if that means under-used stretches, that's unfortunately the price we have to pay.

And yes, I agree that motorways are not needed all over the place. But I certainly take no exception to the construction of the M1, M6, M7 and M8. M9, M20, M18, arguably not... but the others without a doubt are necessary IMO.

If we weren't to construct those key routes as M, we'd be kicking ourselves in a few years time for short-sightedness. At least now we KNOW that these roads will not need ANY major upgrades for a long time.

The only drawback, as AugustusMaximus states, is that the NRA haven't a clue how to link motorways together.

G_R

BluntGuy wrote: »

M9, M20, M18, arguably not... but the others without a doubt are necessary IMO.

cant say i agree with u about the M9...have u ever driven that road...its a disgrace to the N-Road network...and going by ur rationale in the post above (which i completely agree with BTW) it needs to be a motorway.


on everything else tho, +1, i totally agree with u

BluntGuy

BluntGuy wrote: »

The only drawback, as AugustusMaximus states, is that the NRA haven't a clue how to link motorways together.

Dublin is the centre of the known universe, you don't need cross links! :rolleyes:

BluntGuy

Deleted User wrote: »

Dublin is the centre of the known universe, you don't need cross links! :rolleyes:

Yes, but even at the centre of the universe we can't link motorways together well (at least not without 1 billion euro upgrade projects).