Motorways: Do we need them?

silverharp

not very informed on all the variables of this. but on cost/benefit would a more general upgrade of the road network with all the necessary bypasses have been a better decision, given population density?

mike65

Its a bit late for this one, you could make that argument, you could also make a case for "over-engineering" the main N routes. The rest of the N routes are supposed to be upgraded into narrow DCs as I recall.

Mike.

fricatus

I know this is a bit old, but I think it explains some of the reasoning behind having a motorways program:

http://n9-n10kilcullen-waterford.ie/press_releases/10Aug01.htm

I think the key bit is that there are so many dwellings alongside existing N-roads that widening them would lead to much more disruption than building new routes across open countryside does. That's not even taking into account the effect on existing traffic of having to negotiate anything up to a hundred miles of roadworks while the upgrade is carried out.

spacetweek

Due to decades of underinvestment, the road network in Ireland is at such a poor level that in most cases, a full rebuild is the only option in order to bring it up to a reasonable standard. However, this full rebuild would necessarily involve the destruction of most or all of the houses along it, and any that were left behind would have to be given direct access to the road, which has traffic safety implications. In addition, a factor which is much more serious in Ireland than elsewhere, is that rural roads here are lined with tall hedges on both sides, so you would be killing animals in their thousands when you removed them as part of the work. Also, an "online upgrade" (improvement of the existing road as opposed to building a new one) is very disruptive to traffic during the construction. Finally, you can't even build the road this way where the road passes through towns, which must be bypassed anyway.

As for building motorways instead of dual carriageway/wide single carriageway/2+1 etc, the handy thing about motorways is that they're the highest class of road, so in most cases it's decades before you need to revisit it. You can upgrade a route, and not have to worry about it anymore.

In many countries such as the UK, they upgrade a road slightly, then 15-20 years later come back and upgrade again, etc. Each time you upgrade, you disrupt traffic and residents. Finally, you often realise that you should just have built a motorway or similar on a new alignment nearby in the first place.

The A1 in N. Ireland between Belfast and Newry is a perfect example. Back in the 60s, it was proposed to replace it with a motorway, but this was canned in favour of widening to dual of the road. This took about 20 years and the southern part is still not finished. Then the Newry Bypass opened as a single carriageway. Finally, they came back and realised they were going to have to build loads of new junctions all along the route and widen the Newry BP to a dual carriageway. And the crazy thing is that even when all of this is finished, the road will still be low capacity, with a dangerously high number of private accesses onto it. You look at the road, and immediately wonder why they didn't just build a new one on a new alignment nearby. So it always ends up coming back to that.

Amtmann

A majority of posters on politics.ie seem to think that the current project of motorway building in Ireland is one of the biggest wastes of money any government ever invested in.

They have said that it was foolish, inefficient and wasteful to have the new motorways shadowing the N network. For example, they've said it's pointless to have two motorways serving Dublin to Limerick, and Dublin to Cork. They contend that rather than building the M7 from Portlaoise to Limerick, the authorities should have moved the spine if the M8 more westward, and connected it to Limerick via a smaller, shorter motorway that would commence somewhere close to Mitchelstown. They also point out that oil is $143 per barrel, as though this somehow spells the end of the car.

But I actually think that the government was largely correct to bulid the motorways along the old N routes, as it caters for the large population spread along the old trunk roads, and allows traffic and business to continue to visit the bypassed towns via junctions and exits etc. What would happen to Cahir, Cashel, Urlingford and Nenagh, for example, if they were completely stripped of their life's blood - the fact that they lie on well-travelled N roads? Sure, the efficiency priests would have saved a lot of money in the short term, but what of longterm cost to the communities bypassed?

I also don't think much of the "oil is dear, so forget about transport by automobile" line of thought. I think the car will continue to be used as the best means known to get from A to B, and I think that they'll simply be powered by another fuel in the decades ahead. So the motorways will need to be in place well into this century, and yes, I do think they're necessary, as they are the safest type of road - and at the end of the day, it should always be about increasing safety, and servicing as many people as possible.

Carawaystick

I don't buy the passing trade argument keeping towns going.
what boosts a town's economy is removing all the traffic that does not want to be there, allowing people to easily visit and trade in the town, hat is no longer choked with traffic.

If there had been a new route from Dublin to Cork/Limerick well away from Cashel, Cahir, Roscrea etc these towns would still have the current N8/N7/N24 links which would be perfectly acceptable for local traffic of a greatly reduced volume.

this country has definitely built one motorway/dual carriageway too many from Dublin to Limerick/Cork/Waterford/Wexford. these could have been served with 3 good roads.

Loughrea Co. Galway has seen a huge amount of business since it was bypassed, no one needs to stay in a 5 mile traffic jam to get into it anymore, so people visit it to do business there not avoid it.
It will be completely bypassed when the N6 is rerouted straight from BSloe to Galway

and the 867 people in Urlingford does not make it a population centre.

Irish and Proud

Furet wrote: »

I also don't think much of the "oil is dear, so forget about transport by automobile" line of thought. I think the car will continue to be used as the best means known to get from A to B, and I think that they'll simply be powered by another fuel in the decades ahead. So the motorways will need to be in place well into this century, and yes, I do think they're necessary, as they are the safest type of road - and at the end of the day, it should always be about increasing safety, and servicing as many people as possible.

Yeah, I think this "oil is running out" business is beginning to smell like the Y2K story. Oil is a finite resource, but I think the current talk is just a load of hype, and essentially, a money making exercise. Like, prior to 9/11, oil was something like $30 per barrel - within a mere seven years, it's $143? - and many governments worldwide still building roads like there's no tomorrow??? :pac: Just look at China, USA, France, Spain, Britain, Ireland etc!

I think, I think, I smell a stink!!! :pac:

BTW, I heard from various people that the oil companies have bought out some technologies that would pose a threat to their business. If such is true, what real energy crisis have we???

Just more spongers making many on the backs of ordinary hard working people!

Regards!

PS, some nice pics of the M8 mate! Keep them coming!

DublinWriter

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Yeah, I think this "oil is running out" business is beginning to smell like the Y2K story.

I dunno about you, but some of us here worked our collective arses off in 1999 to make sure things went smoothly into the new millennium. Only in the topsy-turvey world of IT were people disappointed that there wasn't global meltdown.

Anyways, back on planet Topic, I think motorways are analogous to the veins and arterys of any modern national economy. Try driving from Dublin to Cork circa 1993 compared to the situation now.

I, for one, feel proud that we have at last come just up to par with pre-war Germany on the motorway front.

I eagerly await the 'Oxygen - the most over-rated element?' thread anyday now.

Irish and Proud

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Yeah, I think this "oil is running out" business is beginning to smell like the Y2K story. Oil is a finite resource, but I think the current talk is just a load of hype, and essentially, a money making exercise. Like, prior to 9/11, oil was something like $30 per barrel - within a mere seven years, it's $143? - and many governments worldwide still building roads like there's no tomorrow??? :pac: Just look at China, USA, France, Spain, Britain, Ireland etc!

I think, I think, I smell a stink!!! :pac:

OK.. drifting a bit OT but have a look here
a link to the wiki list of current oil reserve estimates (guesses).
Yes it will eventually run out but not for some time yet, assuming current levels of extraction, some major fields have over 100 years - others of course are nearly drained using current technology verses cost of extraction. If it's valuable enough, people in the future will dig it out by hand if necessary!

spacetweek

Oil IS running out, it's a finite resource. However, this has little or no impact on driving. The car as a way of getting from A to B is far too useful, once invented, to ever disappear, though we certainly should be managing its frequency of use and its tendancy to cause traffic problems.

So in the future, driving will be as common if not more so than now, just with different fuels - so we still need loads of motorways. In fact, we would even need a certain amount of motorways if traffic levels were a lot lower than they are now. So whatever way you look at it, you still have to build them.

I never bought the idea that you should just build one or two big motorways and have everything feed into them. This results in a small number of really wide, very busy motorways which are constantly having to be upgraded and suffer from traffic jams - plus there's no alternative route in the case of a traffic accident. This was the model that the British followed.

The German way is to have a big network of smaller motorways. This appears to be the idea that we're following here in Ireland - we're duplicating all our N-roads with motorways. This will mean there'll be several ways of completing a journey e.g. Dublin-Cork, 3: direct, via Limerick, and via Waterford.

spacetweek

spacetweek wrote: »

I never bought the idea that you should just build one or two big motorways and have everything feed into them. This results in a small number of really wide, very busy motorways which are constantly having to be upgraded and suffer from traffic jams - plus there's no alternative route in the case of a traffic accident. This was the model that the British followed.

The layout of the M1, M5 & M6 was modelled on soap bubbles, one pin in London one in Bristol, Leeds & Carlisle. Shortest route between population centres.

Lennoxschips

This will mean there'll be several ways of completing a journey e.g. Dublin-Cork, 3: direct, via Limerick, and via Waterford.

Why do I need three different ways to get from Cork to Dublin? Surely one is enough?

If you were to start from scratch, for the same money (or possibly less), this could have been built:

Irish and Proud

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Why do I need three different ways to get from Cork to Dublin? Surely one is enough?

If you were to start from scratch, for the same money (or possibly less), this could have been built:

I've done similar exercises myself, but your concept certainly does give food for thought. I like the way in which you have one motorway stretching from Dublin and branching near Birr to serve both Galway (N6) and Limerick (N7), plus another diverging from the M1 (Belfast) to bypass Dublin's M50 and serve Waterford (N9) and then Cork (N8 & N25) - the latter kills four birds: DOOR, M9, M8 and much of the N25. Of course, you would then use the money saved to build a motorway from Cork to Limerick (N20) and then Galway (N18). Good thinking mate!

But as you say, it's too late now! :pac:

Regards!

mike65

I'd tweak it by going down the N11 and sweeping across at Enniscorthy (DC spur to Rosslare) to Waterford and down to Cork. Then one road west spliting at Birr for Limerick/Galway.

The Cork-Lim-Galway route would be a good DC.

Mike.

Irish and Proud

mike65 wrote: »

I'd tweak it by going down the N11 and sweeping across at Enniscorthy (DC spur to Rosslare) to Waterford and down to Cork. Then one road west spliting at Birr for Limerick/Galway.

The Cork-Lim-Galway route would be a good DC.

Mike.

...Yeah... it could be done - distance wise, it looks OK and you'd kill 5 birds with that stone - Dublin to Cork (N8), Dublin to Waterford (N9), Dublin to Enniscorthy (much of N11), Cork to Waterford (much of N25), and Enniscorthy to New Ross (N30). Seems a good idea, but...

...the big flaw is that you would be funnelling all that traffic through the Glen of the Downs (just 4 lanes), past Bray and onto the M50 SEM and Southern Cross sections. The only one of the said sections that could be significantly expanded is the M50 SEM, because of the geographical terrain - I travel these roads occasionally and work quite near the area. The M50 Southern Cross is currently being widened to 6 lanes but has very little scope for further expansion - houses and litigation (God knows how they even got the M50 built on the Southside). So, if you were to by-pass the Dublin area all together (like the DOOR), where would you go from??? The N11 from Gorey onwards is hemmed in by the Wicklow and Dublin Mountains, so unfortunately though your stone would kill five birds, but the said mountains has enough stone to kill off your idea, plus any idea of extending the DOOR to East Wicklow. It is said that the people of East and West Wicklow hardly see each other, such is the extent of the mountains between them - AFAIK, the Wicklow and Dublin Mountains forms Ireland's largest range.

Sorry mate!

mike65

All which proves Dublin has too much weight in the economy as it sucks everything into it, but that train won't be stopped now.

Mike.

Judgement Day

Oil is running out and running out faster everyday with the mushrooming of demand in places like China and India. The fact that countries like China, India, and even Ireland are embarking on further major road building proves little except that politicians the world over are the same and are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. Prices are not going to fall back to acceptable levels and if Iran is attacked by the West (or Israel) which looks inevitable the price is going to go through the roof. Even if alternatives to petrol/diesel suddenly appeared tomorrow the proliferation of road transport is neither sustainable or desirable. What some of the contributors to this debate seem to miss is how much energy and petroleum derivatives go into the production of motor vehicles. The ever increasing demands on valuable agricultural land for road construction and for the growing of biofuels are other undesirable spin-offs of road based transport solutions. I could go on but those that know and those that don't won't be convinced by my ramblings but to suggest, as some have, that there's is really heaps of oil and there's some weird conspiracy to have us believe otherwise is such nonsense it's not worth commenting on.

fricatus

Judgement Day wrote: »

Oil is running out and running out faster everyday with the mushrooming of demand in places like China and India. The fact that countries like China, India, and even Ireland are embarking on further major road building proves little except that politicians the world over are the same and are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. Prices are not going to fall back to acceptable levels and if Iran is attacked by the West (or Israel) which looks inevitable the price is going to go through the roof. Even if alternatives to petrol/diesel suddenly appeared tomorrow the proliferation of road transport is neither sustainable or desirable. What some of the contributors to this debate seem to miss is how much energy and petroleum derivatives go into the production of motor vehicles. The ever increasing demands on valuable agricultural land for road construction and for the growing of biofuels are other undesirable spin-offs of road based transport solutions. I could go on but those that know and those that don't won't be convinced by my ramblings but to suggest, as some have, that there's is really heaps of oil and there's some weird conspiracy to have us believe otherwise is such nonsense it's not worth commenting on.

Similarly, to believe that mankind doesn't have the ingenuity to find alternative sources of energy for cheap and convenient transport is such nonsense it's not worth commenting on.

Road transport has never been cleaner, safer or more efficient than today. It has a long, long way to go of course but it's moving in the right direction. Look at the developments in the past 20-30 years: pedestrianisation of city centres, the development of hybrid engines, safety innovations on motorways, bus and tram priority, far superior safety.

Remember when we were killing 700 people a year in the '70s? We're down to below half that now, despite having what, three? four? times the number of cars on the road and driving ever longer mileages. What will the figure be in another 30 years? Sweden for instance has a zero-deaths target now.

The fundamental flaw in your opinion is that you assume that current practices and technology will remain unchanged. I remember reading somewhere about how it was once predicted that New York would have a population of over a million souls. The question was asked "But how would we dispose of all the horse manure?"

Amtmann

fricatus wrote: »

Similarly, to believe that mankind doesn't have the ingenuity to find alternative sources of energy for cheap and convenient transport is such nonsense it's not worth commenting on.

Road transport has never been cleaner, safer or more efficient than today. It has a long, long way to go of course but it's moving in the right direction. Look at the developments in the past 20-30 years: pedestrianisation of city centres, the development of hybrid engines, safety innovations on motorways, bus and tram priority, far superior safety.

Remember when we were killing 700 people a year in the '70s? We're down to below half that now, despite having what, three? four? times the number of cars on the road and driving ever longer mileages. What will the figure be in another 30 years? Sweden for instance has a zero-deaths target now.

The fundamental flaw in your opinion is that you assume that current practices and technology will remain unchanged. I remember reading somewhere about how it was once predicted that New York would have a population of over a million souls. The question was asked "But how would we dispose of all the horse manure?"

I couldn't agree more! The last quote sums it up very nicely indeed. One should also point out that travel by automobile can be intensely liberating from a philosophical point of view, too. It gives people so much freedom. There's more than one reason why the motorcar was one of the symbols of the USA in the 1950s.

Lennoxschips

Car-centric planning is also the reason why US cities are soulless, awful places.