Advertisement
Private Profiles - an update on how they will be changing here
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.

Dublin Eastern Bypass feasibility report

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 mysterious


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    Ok, lets look at the numbers then. The current M50 widening is actually adding 2 lanes - the old setup was 2 lanes plus hard shoulder, the new setup will be 3 lanes plus auxiliary lane, plus hard shoulder. To get an idea of how much it will cost to add another lane, forget the 1 billion PPP cost of the existing widening. That 1billion covers the widening plus 30 years of maintenance, and all the large junction upgrades and will include 2 further resurfacings of the road in years to come. The capital cost of widening is much less.
    • Yes adding two lanes on a green wide median. Where are you going to put the traffic when widening the road further now? Where are you going to build, when there is no room currently to cater the current traffic that uses it.
    • Also, your going to have to take adjacent land off the verges, removed the Lighting, walls earth and siignage, thats going to cost money. You do know that there is solid rock at the N4 junction.
    • You now after a second upgrade would have to use far more tarmac, 10/2HS lanes for 30miles... That is alot more tarmac than this upgrade, alot more. and alot more than the M1 four lanes.
    • You also need to replace every bridge.. old and the current ones. the Redcow will cost how much to knock, after been upgraded already?
    A very similar project across the water, where all bridges had to be knocked is the M1 widening project from London to Luton, widening from 3 lanes to 4. 10 miles of widening cost £300million http://www.cbrd.co.uk/futures/scheme.php?id=138. Construction and land costs are similar there to here, so the costs should be about the same. Since the whole M50 is about 30 miles, the cost would be £900 million to do a similar job on the M50. This is about €1 billion.

    The land adjacent to the M50 is far more expensive than greenfield site along a long distance motorway that of the M1. The land cost would be higher here, and land cost around the M50 would be way higher. As it's built up on either side. Also that price is in pounds.

    So your quite wrong. You really have no idea, if the planners were clearly trying upgrade the M50 to it's maximum, they were stupid to build the new bridges the same width though, but it doesn't matter now, all bridges would have to be knocked. This would be astronomical in costs.
    But that's not really relevant. I drive on the M50 regularly at rush hour, and the parts where widening is finished move freely now. The bottlenecks are at Blanch and Ballymount where the road narrows. Once these are removed, the M50 will be perfectly sufficient for Dublins motorway needs for the time being.
    Well you brought up the topic of the M50, and now it's irrelevant.

    Do you read your own posts, ffs.:rolleyes: No it's not. The road will be at capactiy once finished. We were talking about the east cost of the city where the Port tunnel currently dumps at the Eastlink bridge. The latter of the route should finish on the southside.
    But the question I'm asking is - what journeys does this provide that aren't currently catered for? The only two I can see is going South to North via the port tunnel, which is catered for by the M50, or going from South to the city centre. A city centre we have spent 15 years trying to remove commuter traffic from. What is the compelling reason for this motorway? Whose lives will it improve? What strategic journeys will it allow?
    • Well for one it will complete the motorway ring.
    • It will allow to access points in the city. Port tunnell and Sandyford, at the moment all M50 traffic has to use the Port tunnel entrance,including traffic from the south and N7, it's a very unecessary drive.
    • It will relieve traffic in Ringsend, Stillorgan, South ciriculur roads, Sandyford, Dundrum and the coast road, wherre traffic is chronic.
    • It will also allow H.G.Vs have direct access to the port from the south and N11.
    • It would ease the N11 hugely.
    • It would give N7 traffic another alternatative to gain access to the south rather than entering the RI10 via Longmile and Walkinstown towards south Dublin.
    • It will give the M50 and the city a second lung, if the M50 goes to a complete standstill the eastlink can cater for the alternative traffic.
    Because I can tell you what it will make worse - the people living next to it will be forced to deal with the traffic and community severance a large motorway brings.

    BALONY. Next to it, I live near the Port tunnell. It has no effect WHATSOVER negatively, infact it has removed all the trucks and heavy traffic from the main road. It gives the local road back to the poeple of the area. Also the tunnel goes underground not over my house, as will the eastlink tunnel. What is your argument here? You are just talking pure nonsense. Trafific impact would be positive, so your again wrong with this argument.

    Other than completely bull****ting, have you any other valid point?

    With the traffic? You live in a city for god sake. Most of it is tunnelled, and the latter half is on a green field site going through Sandyford, this greenbelt is provided for this road.

    So again you don't have a clue of what your talking about. Did you read the feasbility report. No I guess not.:rolleyes:
    Dublin commuters will have to wait longer for good public transport, as funds are pumped into a road network that will always be inadequate for the demand. Or those of us that have to pay for this white elephant, which could easily buy, and take your pick:
    -A high capacity metro system for Dublin
    -The interconnector, plus electrification of commuter lines in Dublin, plus 4 tracking of the northern line, plus improvements to the Cork and Belfast lines to give travel times of <2hours and <1.5hours respectively, and proper suburban rail networks in Limerick and Galway with dual track to Limerick junction and Athenry.
    -Every other important road project in the state: the Cork Limerick motorway, the Limerick Galway motorway including Galway bypass, sorting out Newlands cross, and the Cork south ring road roundbouts, and building a bypass around New Ross, Enniscorthy, Adare, and improving the N24, N4, N17 and N25.

    Yet your post, show more idiocy and contradictory nonsense. You state we shouldn't build more roads such as the Eastlink , yet your up for building of more roads in the same paragraph.

    Clearly showing that you really don't have much clarity and points to anything.
    Can you really say that this is a priority compared to the above projects?

    It is a priority. It is a priority like the metro, I can think of many projects that are a lesser prority than the eastlink.

    Like the M3, the M9, the Tullamore bypass are just to name a few, but they went ahead regardless.

    You still haven't given any evidence why they shouldn't build this, other than your notions it will affect people. Do you live in D4 or something?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭ Aard


    I don't think adding another lane to the current M50 is a better solution than the Eastern Bypass: middle lane hogs are bad enough, without having to navigate a 4-lane highway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,083 lostexpectation


    mysterious wrote: »
    Sydney and thats off the top of my head. What the **** has sea got to do with the idea of planning a proper motorway infrastructure. If sea is an inhibitor for building an orbital, then I don't know what road should ever be built on coastal cities.

    Your points are really coming accross as inane to me and don't make much sense. London isn't far from sea either. about 25miles. Your point is?

    london is not on the sea. dublin is, its insane not to recognise that,its a minor point but it is relevant, some cities have old coastal motorways we dont' some like tokyo build bridges and tunnels, the sea is very relevant to dublin. i simply asking for better examples then paris and london, i don't think that was such a big ask, why are you having a fit about it. dublin is zero miles form the sea.

    mysterious how many times are you going to call various posters "retarded" how about you calm down.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,083 lostexpectation


    mysterious wrote: »
    I agree with everything you said but then you said this


    Your defenition of a "real point" is? if you give a point, please back it up, your post is looking a bit frail in that regard

    And when you said this, you've clearly shown you don't understand how transportation works.



    It would actually be more expensive and time consuming to widen the M50 again. Dublin does need a full orbital. Widening this road, will still not make much difference to the east side of the city and make much benifet to the M50 other than having more running lanes.

    I'm a a fan of Public transport. But Dublin has an inaduquate road transport system. The city is built for car type transport I'm afraid, even though we have narrow streets. The density and sprawl is the type of city where cars are going to be used more often than other types of transport.

    Dublin cannot depend on one motorway to carry all motorway traffic and to say it will, is just stupid and retarded.

    Do you realise, that all the bridges will have to be knocked if the M50 was widened and you do realise the current chaos it will bring again, good god I think you should leave this topic alone, if you don't please research a bit more on this topic and read the feasbility report

    Don't be going saying there is no real point because. Back up with credible and proof.

    all that from the writer of this thread... Will we ever get a 8 lane highway http://ww.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054875131

    :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 mysterious


    all that from the writer of this thread... Will we ever get a 8 lane highway http://ww.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054875131

    :rolleyes:

    Hahaha I feel flattered that you had to go all the way back to 2006 and find something like that.

    Yeah it was a question I put out there, since we don't have a 4lane each way highway in this country. Belfast has a five lane highway. I never made a serious dicussion or made any real contender for one.

    Though the M50 redcow to Newlands should be at least 4 lanes each way.
    But since you had to drag a 3 year old thread, your obviously made an issue about it.

    ROFL....:P

    Go back to your argument of which city has a coast, and then which city does and wait which is in Dublins category, but now which has U ring or a C ring. etc. :D


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 mysterious


    london is not on the sea. dublin is, its insane not to recognise that,its a minor point but it is relevant, some cities have old coastal motorways we dont' some like tokyo build bridges and tunnels, the sea is very relevant to dublin. i simply asking for better examples then paris and london, i don't think that was such a big ask, why are you having a fit about it. dublin is zero miles form the sea.

    mysterious how many times are you going to call various posters "retarded" how about you calm down.

    Dublin is beside the sea WTF has this got to do with anything? We are talking about a tunnel here. The idea of a viaduct or causeway is just some stupid idea from some over imaginative person who put the idea of reclaiming land like the dutch do.

    I can tell you here and now. The causway out at sea is not going to happen. They are not going to reclaim the land. Sea levels are rising itw will have detremental effect to the environment, wildlife, the beaches scenery around Sandymount strand.

    I'm going to say it again, to all the people that have this sexual desire for reclaiming all this land out at sea. It's not going to happen.

    So please put this Dublin at sea argument at rest. We know already:rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,083 lostexpectation


    mysterious wrote: »
    Dublin is beside the sea WTF has this got to do with anything? We are talking about a tunnel here. The idea of a viaduct or causeway is just some stupid idea from some over imaginative person who put the idea of reclaiming land like the dutch do.

    I can tell you here and now. The causway out at sea is not going to happen. They are not going to reclaim the land. Sea levels are rising itw will have detremental effect to the environment, wildlife, the beaches scenery around Sandymount strand.

    I'm going to say it again, to all the people that have this sexual desire for reclaiming all this land out at sea. It's not going to happen.

    So please put this Dublin at sea argument at rest. We know already:rolleyes:

    sexual desires for reclaiming land now is it. continue your rants


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,048 bill_ashmount


    mysterious wrote: »
      It is a priority. It is a priority like the metro, I can think of many projects that are a lesser prority than the eastlink.

    Economist on Prime Time last night said no proper study has been conducted into the economic viability of the Metro. Was he lying or is there one?

    Why should this project go ahead?


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,052 ✭✭✭✭ Victor


    Chill out folks.
    Economist on Prime Time last night said no proper study has been conducted into the economic viability of the Metro. Was he lying or is there one?

    Why should this project go ahead?
    The RPA will have had to provide the Departments of Transport and Finance with a business case, which will have included a cost:benefit study. I think the statement may have been disingenuous at best.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 mysterious


    sexual desires for reclaiming land now is it. continue your rants

    I backed up my arguments, I don't know what the hell are your trying to claim other than, bring up a 3 year old thread, waffle, your contradictory posts and you have proved you don't know what your talking about. I don't think anyone knows what your on about either.

    You started about coastal cities, and you got lost in that.

    Did you even read the feasibility report. Do you know anything about the scheme? The needs etc etc.?

    No you clearly haven't. BTW your above quote doesn't make any sense either. lol


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,048 bill_ashmount


    Victor wrote: »

    The RPA will have had to provide the Departments of Transport and Finance with a business case, which will have included a cost:benefit study. I think the statement may have been disingenuous at best.

    Is this available to the public? I can't find anything online.

    Cheers


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,083 lostexpectation


    mysterious wrote: »
    I backed up my arguments, I don't know what the hell are your trying to claim other than, bring up a 3 year old thread, waffle, your contradictory posts and you have proved you don't know what your talking about. I don't think anyone knows what your on about either.

    You started about coastal cities, and you got lost in that.

    Did you even read the feasibility report. Do you know anything about the scheme? The needs etc etc.?

    No you clearly haven't. BTW your above quote doesn't make any sense either. lol

    you still havn't calmed down, take victor's advice.

    i was quoting you

    i was making a simple request for provide examples of coastal cities you couldn't accept this, and cotinued ranting and calling everyone retarded perhaps you could apologise for that and we can move on.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 mysterious


    you still havn't calmed down, take victor's advice.

    i was quoting you

    i was making a simple request for provide examples of coastal cities you couldn't accept this, and cotinued ranting and calling everyone retarded perhaps you could apologise for that and we can move on.

    I was pretty calm, I wasn't annoyed. I couldn't accept what? I'd prefer Victor to make the judgments.
    I'd prefer to stick to the topic aswell. Lostexpectation, you clearly were not making sense as you kept making constants assertions and avoiding the some truths here on the board, nor would you except any examples as I've shown you. You basically avoided my responses, On top of that you brang up old stuff on other threads that were dicussed three years ago. for what I don't know..

    I personally think you have only confused yourself here. I'm dicussing the Eastern bypass issue here, nothing else. I really don't know what your going on about. Nor do I think its worth going into any more.

    Anyway I hope this clarifies everything. Cus I'm done with it. P.S I thanked victor for his action.


Advertisement