Motorists face new tolls to cover cost of €4bn Dublin Bay tunnel

Typewriter

Motorists face new tolls to cover cost of €4bn Dublin Bay tunnel
By Paul Melia


Wednesday January 07 2009

MOTORISTS will be tolled to cover the potential €4bn cost of an ambitious motorway under Dublin Bay.

A new report obtained by the Irish Independent reveals details of the proposed 11km Eastern motorway running from the Port Tunnel to the M50.

The bypass would complete a full ring motorway for the capital, closing the gap between the Port Tunnel and the M50, and could be built within 10 years.

The scheme was first mooted in the 1970s, and is an objective in the Dublin Transportation Office's Platform for Change strategy, published in 2000.

According to the new report, costs could be as high as €4.35bn, calculated at 2015 prices.

And the consultant's report prepared for the National Roads Authority says it is technically feasible and economically viable, with the economic benefit running at more than double the construction costs.

It would be tolled, and could take in €38m a year in revenue, while the bypass would cost €14m to maintain.

But the project has serious implications for the future of Dublin Port.

Two studies are under way on the future of Dublin Bay, and a decision will have to be made on whether the port should remain in its current location or move to free-up large tracts of land near the city centre.

Traffic

The bypass would do much more than take traffic out of the city centre and off the M50 on the west side of the city. An objective of providing the road is that the Poolbeg Peninsula and South Port area could be developed to provide homes and businesses in the heart of the city, instead of continuing expansion on the outer fringes of the capital.

The report says it is possible to "largely avoid" impacts for buildings and communities by following existing road reservations, but it notes the protected status of much of Dublin Bay.

Parts are deemed to be natural heritage areas and special protection areas, meaning that wildlife must be protected.

It says that undeveloped lands along the proposed route could be reserved, in particular the grounds of the Radisson St Helen's Hotel at the Stillorgan Road. It rules out the complete project being tunnelled.

This first feasibility study into the scheme splits the proposed route into four sectors.

The first deals with the section from the Dublin Port Tunnel toll plaza through the Port and to Sandymount, and recommends that a tunnel or a high viaduct or bridge just downstream of the East Link bridge should be built, to take between 32,000-56,000 vehicles a day.

The second section, at Sandymount Strand, could see a tunnel built along the coastline or a viaduct constructed 1km off-shore. Traffic will travel through the third section, from Booterstown to the N11 at UCD, via a tunnel with 1.2km running underneath UCD, before continuing underground to the Sandyford interchange of the M50 via Kilmacud, completing the ring-road.

Three options have been finalised, costing between €3.95bn and €4.35bn at 2015 prices. At 2007 costs, the bill would run from €2.6bn and €3.2bn.

- Paul Melia






Route options for motorway

Independent.ie By Paul Melia


Wednesday January 07 2009

Route Option One (€3.95bn at 2015 prices): 2.5km viaduct, nine metres above the ground, across Dublin Port, tunnel under Dublin Bay, viaduct across Sandymount strand with a tunnel under Booterstown and tunnel from the N11 to Sandyford interchange.

Route Option Two (€4.2bn): High viaduct across the Port, with a tunnel under bay, across Sandymount Strand, under Booterstown and from the N11 to Sandyford.

Route Option Three (€4.35bn): Cut and cover tunnel across the Port. Tunnel under bay, across Sandymount Strand and under Booterstown and a part tunnel from the N11 to Sandyford.

THE TIMESCALE:

2008-2011: Statutory procedures, including planning and design stage.

2012: Land purchases.

2013: Contract awarded.

2018: Eastern bypass opens.

:eek:

Run_to_da_hills

That will work out to about 14Bn by the time it finishes.

dynamick

NRA flogging this dead nag again to beg for a new project. Project survival.

You can't polish a turd but you can roll it in glitter.

An ape could tell you that a new motorway in the city between the IFSC and Sandyford Industrial estate via UCD will generate more city car traffic.

Still - it would be very handy for Seamrog Island.

Colm R

Mind boggles:

With the current economic climate, I think its time for some rationalisation. Drop the NRA & the RPA. Make a single infrastructure body, say the Irish Transport Authority. One super authority, kind of like the HSE, but this time, take out the middle management so it would actually work.

Anyway, on topic, there is enough roads in Dublin now. Building more is like marching lemmings off a cliff. Dublin needs public transport investment now – simple as. And for the love of God, some integration.

Cookie_Monster

It's just what the CIF needs to prop up the builders and is probably a better spend than the metro.

As lon as this bit

viaduct constructed 1km off-shore

is not done. What an eyesore that would be:eek:

Sponge Bob

I can smell real fear in the NRA if they are trying to justify their existence with that scam , why do we have 3 RDO's in the Pale when one would surely do ??

Cool Mo D

I believe this total waste of money will open at the same time as the Sligo - Swinford Western High Speed Rail line.

BluntGuy

Well for those of you worried about the scheme going ahead over others you might be comforted to know that simply haven't got 4 billion to throw at a project like this.

And even if we did, with an M11, M18, M20, SRRs, Newlands Cross, Adare Bypass, Claregalway and many other places still to sort out, this project wouldn't be seeing much of the cash.

But the time may come when this is needed so better to start planning early I guess so that when funding is available specifically for this project, and when the project is right to have priority, it can go straight to construction. At the moment, neither of the aforementioned conditions look like they're going to be fulfilled for a very long time.

Victor

Of course, the only things Sandyford Industrial Estate is being used for these days is apartments and office blocks. I wonder how much manufacturing is left.

Colm R wrote: »

Anyway, on topic, there is enough roads in Dublin now. Building more is like marching lemmings off a cliff. Dublin needs public transport investment now – simple as. And for the love of God, some integration.

I would add a small qualification - there are some small traffic (as opposed to roads) projects that would be useful in relieving specific trouble spots - for example Drumcondra Road Lower where the pub juts into the road and there is no bus lane.

dynamick wrote: »

You can't polish a turd but you can roll it in glitter.

Freeze it first! :eek:

Chris_533976

There is absolutely no way this will be done anytime soon, if at all. Not at €4 billion anyway, and not with the DOOR and every other project listed on the NRAs webpage.

1huge1

Im all for the NRA thinking forward for once but this is absurd.

lostexpectation

THE proposed €4bn eastern motorway under Dublin Bay has received a major boost after a new report confirmed the project was economically viable.

While the 11km route running from the Port Tunnel to the southern end of the M50 has been mooted for decades, a new report has brought it a step closer to fulfilment. Prepared for the National Roads Authority (NRA), the consultant's document outlines how tolling on the motorway would bring in €38m a year in revenue, while it would cost €14m to maintain.

The proposed route has been split into four sectors.

In the section from the Port Tunnel to Sandymount, it recommends a tunnel or bridge should be built to take between 32,000-56,000 vehicles a day.

A coastline tunnel or off-shore viaduct is the preferable option for the second section at Sandymount Strand.

The third section of the road, from Booterstown to the N11 at UCD, would be completed by a tunnel with 1.2km running underneath UCD to the Sandyford interchange of the M50 via Kilmacud.

However, there is strong opposition from the Greens and environmentalists.

Environment Minister John Gormley last year said: "It makes no sense from a financial or policy point of view to go ahead with a project like this," Mr Gormley said last year

"Dublin Bay is an extremely sensitive area. If we are looking at new projects for Dublin, the emphasis should be on providing public transport," he said.

- Cormac Murphy

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/dublin-bay-tunnel-is-viable-says-report-1594120.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/motorists-face-new-tolls-to-cover-cost-of-83644bn-dublin-bay-tunnel-1593882.html

Zoney

Colm R wrote: »

Mind boggles:

With the current economic climate, I think its time for some rationalisation. Drop the NRA & the RPA. Make a single infrastructure body, say the Irish Transport Authority. One super authority, kind of like the HSE, but this time, take out the middle management so it would actually work.

Hey, you could even call it the Department of Transport, and maybe have a Minister for Transport in charge?

But seriously, I think this knee-jerk idea of scrap everything and bundle it together is foolish - far better to fix any problems there are with each body. Major bodies like NRA are not the problem, it's the proliferation of smaller services provided on a county-level basis, and indeed in some cases not even that, but just the poor administration and low productivity that goes on. These problems filter down of course from the very top - look at how much our government sits compared to others, and how many TDs it takes for the workload of a country of 4 million to be not at all satisfactorily executed (we're over-represented by comparison to most places).

IIMII

John Gormley wrote:

"It makes no sense from a financial or policy point of view to go ahead with a project like this," Mr Gormley said last year

I don't know what gives John Gormley the right to comment on anything transport-wise. The Greens were elected partly on a public transport mandate, which they abandoned the minute they went into government.

Re the various agencies, they are purposely neutered by the government. The Government didn't create them to decide to do things. They created them so they could keep doing things themselves, keeping credit for positives where possible but using the agencies as decoy targets when things went wrong or when unpalatable decisions from a politcial perspective need to be taken. That said, the NRA seems to be the only one with any scope to do anything off it's own bat

Colm R

Zoney wrote: »

it's the proliferation of smaller services provided on a county-level basis, and indeed in some cases not even that, but just the poor administration and low productivity that goes on.

This is very true. I know a guy who works in assembling cranes and so drives very big loads. For the M50 alone, he has three permits, one for each of the county councils it passes through. That’s 3 sets of teams employed by the state to carry out the same function.

Tabnabs

There is a cheaper alternative, the scheme in the Irish Times is 50% cheaper, maybe this should be in bargain alerts :pac:

The Dublin Bay Bridge is a non runner as the Greens have very "cleverly" recently out in a marine version of a conservation area in Dublin bay from the South Wall to Dun Laoghaire thereby scuppering any chance of construction in this entire area.

It will be built one day though, remember, the M50 was designed in the 80s...

Irish and Proud

green_jesus wrote: »

:eek:

I'm all for road development, but the Eastern By-pass???

What a load of rubbish, especially in these recessionary times! :mad:

What could possibly justify a €4bn tunnel under South Dublin Bay - like it links up what??? - the M1 and N11 routes - for €4bn???

Sure for that kind of money, projects like the interconnector, or the AWC, or a few LUAS lines etc could be constructed.

Looks like certain people are (in the words of Sponge Bob) "trying to look as if they're doing something" before on board snip comes knocking on the door.

What do these people take us for - reminds me of the Disneyland proposal for North County Dublin a few years ago - like YEAH, RIGHT!!! :rolleyes:

jd

Dyflin wrote: »

The Dublin Bay Bridge is a non runner as the Greens have very "cleverly" recently out in a marine version of a conservation area in Dublin bay from the South Wall to Dun Laoghaire thereby scuppering any chance of construction in this entire area.

It was the NPWS that drew up the areas to be designated.

BluntGuy

Irish and Proud wrote: »

What do these people take us for - reminds me of the Disneyland proposal for North County Dublin a few years ago - like YEAH, RIGHT!!! :rolleyes:

To be fair, a Disneyland may not have been a bad investment...

You certainly need something to cheer yourself up when these idiots are in power...

Carawaystick

So a EUR4000million project that takes in 38mil in revenue(assume no cost of collection) and cost's 14mil to maintain leaving 24mil per annum to pay off the cost in 181years....
Oh yeah, economically viable alright.

HonalD

Victor wrote: »

there are some small traffic (as opposed to roads) projects that would be useful in relieving specific trouble spots - for example Drumcondra Road Lower where the pub juts into the road and there is no bus lane.

Is there a preservation order on this pub? I heard that it has an interesting history............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz - I suppose you could save the pub and knock the wall at St. Patrick's!

Irish and Proud

HonalD wrote: »

Is there a preservation order on this pub? I heard that it has an interesting history............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz - I suppose you could save the pub and knock the wall at St. Patrick's!

yeah.... like come on, it's not exactly Christ Church, Trinity College, or the GPO we're talking about here - just widen the bloody thing and cut the BS! :mad:

Regards!

Irish and Proud

Irish and Proud wrote: »

What could possibly justify a €4bn tunnel under South Dublin Bay - like it links up what??? - the M1 and N11 routes - for €4bn???

...in addition to the fact that the road (being a tunnel) could not operate as a full motorway for safety reasons - remember that the DPT has a high toll for cars because the government does not want the traffic backing up in the tunnel itself (in case of fire). So where does this thing of significantly increasing road capacity around Dublin come in -

RUBBISH, RUBBISH and more - yeah, you guessed it! - RUBBISH!!! :mad:

What does these people take us for??? :mad:

Mitch Connor

Not a bad idea imo.

IMO the government should be trying to spend as much as it can on building infrastructure that needs to be built. Get it done quickly by employing a crap load of the recently laid off people of Ireland. Sure, it would cost, but they would get income tax from the wages teh people employed receive (as opposed to just paying out on dole) and would increase the spending power of a large number of people - thus increasing VAT intake and making small business that bit more viable. Better infrastructure would also make ireland that little bit more attractive to business. To get out of this economic mess, more jobs are needed. The government may as well create some of those jobs itself.

Pisser Dignam

Nobody should be entertaining notions that this will come before the underground lines, etc. When it is built though, it'll need a strong economic situation to back it up, like the port tunnel had.

dowlingm

Carawaystick wrote: »

So a EUR4000million project that takes in 38mil in revenue(assume no cost of collection) and cost's 14mil to maintain leaving 24mil per annum to pay off the cost in 181years....
Oh yeah, economically viable alright.

Your use of operating cost only assumes that if you don't build this you don't have to build something else.

This idea is in sore need of alternatives analysis though.

SeanW

Mitch Connor wrote: »

IMO the government should be trying to spend as much as it can on building infrastructure that needs to be built. Get it done quickly by employing a crap load of the recently laid off people of Ireland. Sure, it would cost, but they would get income tax from the wages teh people employed receive (as opposed to just paying out on dole) and would increase the spending power of a large number of people - thus increasing VAT intake and making small business that bit more viable. Better infrastructure would also make ireland that little bit more attractive to business. To get out of this economic mess, more jobs are needed. The government may as well create some of those jobs itself.

I'm not a huge fan of Keynesian economics, but some implementations of Keynesianism simply involved hiring people to do things for the sake of it, I think (in the Great Depression) there were examples of the government paying people to dig ditches and fill them back up again.

And this kooky idea has all the hallmarks of being just like that.
I'm sorry but there are much better things to do with that €4bn (and most likely more given the scale of the proposals). We don't have the money and if the government is going to borrow the money or just print it, it may as well be spent on something useful.

Dublin needs a serious amount of public transport NOW, like the Interconnector, preferably a citywide Metro system, more Luas, improved bus options, and certain limited additional road and heavy rail works.
Dozens of towns nationwide are still waiting for N-Road bypasses. The railways nationwide are slower than they were in the 1970s and in some cases the 1930s.

I'm all for giving Dublin the infrasturcture it needs, but this is one kooky plan that can be done without.

Mitch Connor

SeanW wrote: »

I'm not a huge fan of Keynesian economics, but some implementations of Keynesianism simply involved hiring people to do things for the sake of it, I think (in the Great Depression) there were examples of the government paying people to dig ditches and fill them back up again.

And this kooky idea has all the hallmarks of being just like that.
I'm sorry but there are much better things to do with that €4bn (and most likely more given the scale of the proposals). We don't have the money and if the government is going to borrow the money or just print it, it may as well be spent on something useful.

Dublin needs a serious amount of public transport NOW, like the Interconnector, preferably a citywide Metro system, more Luas, improved bus options, and certain limited additional road and heavy rail works.
Dozens of towns nationwide are still waiting for N-Road bypasses. The railways nationwide are slower than they were in the 1970s and in some cases the 1930s.

I'm all for giving Dublin the infrasturcture it needs, but this is one kooky plan that can be done without.

grand - my little rant was aimed more at the current non-action from the government and the commitment to R&D spend that i see as a waste in the current climate. Maybe this tunnel, itself, isn't a great idea now - but as you say, Dublin needs Metro, more Luas, the Interconnector and improvement to the roads. There are people crying out for jobs (and not pointless ones like digging a ditch and filling it back in) and I think the government could do a lot worse than create these jobs by pushing through plans to improve the infrastructure of the country thus creating jobs to be filled.

Now, I know not all people recently joined the unemployment line will be suited to the work that would be entailed, but i'm sure there is a good number that would be, or would be willing to adapt themselves for the sake of a wage.

tobsey

I don't see what the mass objection to this is about. There's a simple fact here about Dublin, IT HAS A BAY! It's shapped like this:

DDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDD
DDDDDD
DDDD

DDDD
DDDDDD
DDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDD

So If you take it that there as as many crossing from the North to Southsides as there are the other way around, If everyone went straight across traffic wouldn't be so bad. As things stand everyone who lives near the East Coast has to use the Amien Street, Gardiner Street and Pearse St areas of the city to get accross. Anyone else who drives through here will agree that it is a joke.

I live in Swords and work in Dundrum so this would be perfect for me. I know times are tight and the government have to reign in spending but I think the benifits of this project need to be considered. As was mentioned above it would provide a huge amount of employment which gets money flowing in the economy. Also much more efficient driving by truckers as they don't have to travel the length of the M50 if they are coming from the southside; and generally taking more traffic out of the city.

I don't see why the Greens are so oppossed to this as traffic sitting idle in the city centre is much more harmful than vehicles covering the same distance at 50Mph.And I will laugh if they tell me I should be using public transport instead of driving with the system the shambles that it is.

Colm R

tobsey wrote: »

I don't see what the mass objection to this is about. There's a simple fact here about Dublin, IT HAS A BAY! It's shapped like this:

DDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDD
DDDDDD
DDDD

DDDD
DDDDDD
DDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDD

So If you take it that there as as many crossing from the North to Southsides as there are the other way around, If everyone went straight across traffic wouldn't be so bad. As things stand everyone who lives near the East Coast has to use the Amien Street, Gardiner Street and Pearse St areas of the city to get accross. Anyone else who drives through here will agree that it is a joke.

I live in Swords and work in Dundrum so this would be perfect for me. I know times are tight and the government have to reign in spending but I think the benifits of this project need to be considered. As was mentioned above it would provide a huge amount of employment which gets money flowing in the economy. Also much more efficient driving by truckers as they don't have to travel the length of the M50 if they are coming from the southside; and generally taking more traffic out of the city.

I don't see why the Greens are so oppossed to this as traffic sitting idle in the city centre is much more harmful than vehicles covering the same distance at 50Mph.And I will laugh if they tell me I should be using public transport instead of driving with the system the shambles that it is.

I only agree with you on one point - the public transport system is in a shambles.

However, it is my view, that the most efficent way to move a mass amount of commuting people across, around and through a large urban area is mass public transport.

You live in Swords, you work in Dundrum. If the money spent on this project was ploughed in to a public transport system that works, and provided you are willing to get out of your car, you would have an alternative that works. But I will stand up and admit that there are a lot of things to sort out first like:

Government Attitude.
Public Attitude.
Infrastucture.

But, and again this is my opinion, it would be the easier thing to do, with the best results to build public transport, than to build more roads.

bk

Colm R wrote: »

You live in Swords, you work in Dundrum. If the money spent on this project was ploughed in to a public transport system that works, and provided you are willing to get out of your car, you would have an alternative that works.

As an example, once Metro North is complete, you would be able to get the Metro from Swords to Stephens Green and then the Luas to Dundrum.

tobsey

bk wrote: »

As an example, once Metro North is complete, you would be able to get the Metro from Swords to Stephens Green and then the Luas to Dundrum.

That's true and it is my intention to try it but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to be completed.

As a further point I think now is the perfect time for the Government to push on with projects like this. Contractors aren't charging anywhere near the prices they were a few years ago as they know they won't get them. Also after another interest rate cut yesterday it's very cheap for the government to borrow money.

I think we should use projects like this to keep the economy ticking over in these hard times because you can be guaranteed that as soon as things pick up and the government's tax take increases, you can be damn sure that the price of projects like this will go up to.

BluntGuy

Colm R wrote: »

But I will stand up and admit that there are a lot of things to sort out first like:

Government Attitude.
Public Attitude.
Infrastucture.

The problem is these are all dependent on each other.

The government attitude towards (public transport) infrastructure only improves if they see that the public's attitude towards the infrastructure is good. The public attitude's attitude will only improve if the government has a positive attitude towards public transport and if they see that good quality infrastructure is available for them. And infrastructure will only improve if the public want the infrastructure and are willing to use it, and the government is willing to fund it.

lostexpectation

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/eastern-bypass-put-off-to-2015-as-money-runs-out-1674391.html

*pfllbbbbrb*

there's a sea in the way, get over it.

cyclopath2001

tobsey wrote: »

As a further point I think now is the perfect time for the Government to push on with projects like this. Contractors aren't charging anywhere near the prices they were a few years ago as they know they won't get them. Also after another interest rate cut yesterday it's very cheap for the government to borrow money..

I think they should wait another year, the construction industry will be begging for mercy by then. This year, we'll be lucky to borrow what's needed to get through the global recession. By next year, Ireland will still be in recession and the builders will be even more reasonable than now.

In the meantime, we should look for ways to make more efficient use of what we've got. There's a lot of wasted roadspace out there.

Stimulating the economy with building projects is like giving a diabetic a sugar rush.

Cookie_Monster

Would a cheaper alternative be to put the tunnel under the existing N11. That way there would be little land purchase require, cheaper cut and cover methods could be used and the bay can remain untouched, keeping all those greenies happy:)

Granted this would probably cause a lot of disruption and you need to "turn" off down towards the port at some point...

Pisser Dignam

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Would a cheaper alternative be to put the tunnel under the existing N11. That way there would be little land purchase require, cheaper cut and cover methods could be used and the bay can remain untouched, keeping all those greenies happy:)

Granted this would probably cause a lot of disruption and you need to "turn" off down towards the port at some point...

You haven't thought this through have you. And as for that article:

The bypass, which will link Portmarnock and Sandymount...

they obviously don't know where Dublin Port Tunnel is located.

Cookie_Monster

Pisser Dignam wrote: »

You haven't thought this through have you.

No, it was just a propasal. You'll have to give me shedloads of money to draw up a consultation paper to see if it's actually viable:D

Capt'n Midnight

€4 Bn ?

For that sort of money we could setup broadband for everyone, or spend a tiny fraction of that taking eircom and it's debts back. The amount of telecommuting would mean less travel and so savings on Koyoto fines , balance of payments on fuel imports, less traffic on the roads so lower congestion everywhere and civil servants could decentralise too

Capt'n Midnight

Victor wrote:

Freeze it first! :eek:

http://www.poopfreeze.com
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Fp5_e5aPqUY/SB366Uqs2XI/AAAAAAAADEQ/5gvYWyHuvm0/s1600-h/imagespoopfreeze.jpg
it exists ! :eek: