The NRA must be stopped

w2_3vc

MYOB wrote: »

In that case why do you have a secondary account named after their HQ?.

Because I like early 18th Century architecture; is that a crime?

MYOB wrote: »

That you think that:
1: The AA's "routings" are being done by them (they're done by a fairly poorly designed computer system)
2: The main traffic flows actually use said routings

Show that you clearly aren't much of a driver.

It doesn't use the N17 in any scenario.

The key point Aidan makes ( to my mind) is that Motorways can be protected from having bungalows built on them where the same cannot be said of WS2 and Type 2 roads ...they being not motorways.

You really have a very low opinion of the NRA who under the NRA Act are a prescribed planning body notified of any application on any N route; that they have been asleep at the wheel for many years is a disgrace.

Dick Roche

Chief architect of NAMA his tenure as minister for Environment saw enough rezoning in some counties to equate to 100 years of home building. If you want to know why NAMA portfolios are seeing discounts of 60-70% it is because so much of the lending was to speculative purchases of rezoned and unzoned land which when the music stopped is effectively worthless.

You need to see the reality the IMF are signing the cheques not because a few environmentalists objected every once in a while in the planning process it is because the population got caught up in the hubris of people like Dick Roche, Sean Fizpatrick and Sean Dunne.

We as a people didn't object to unrealistic property schemes and unviable transport schemes such as the Tuam Motorway, Metro North and the Western Rail Corridor and boy are we paying for it now.

That the exchequer paid €100m top up to two toll operators last year is obscene; that the NRA haven't been pulled back in respect of speculative land purchases is beyond belief. That the M1, M4/6, M7/8 are completed is equally something to be celebrated along with Luas transport has taken a quantum leap forward; getting projects like Dublin Underground done and the DART system up to 100m pax capacity and strengthening regional airports like Galway, Derry with connections to Paris etc must take precendence over commuter motorways.

L1011

w2_3vc wrote: »

Because I like early 18th Century architecture; is that a crime?

Just extremely suspicious in this circumstance, as is using two accounts on the same thread. On any forum I'm a moderator on, that's generally an instant banning offence.

w2_3vc wrote: »

It doesn't use the N17 in any scenario.

And it should. Routing virtually *all* inter-urban traffic via the M50 is a sure fire way to ensure it will need another lane added sooner rather than later.

With the M20 and M17 there would be no need to go via Dublin when there is a shorter similar quality routing. There are currently people who go from Cork to Sligo via the M50 for instance, the Claregalway and Tuam crawls being amongst the main reasons.

antoobrien

w2_3vc wrote: »

Ithe government is paying inflated borrowing costs from the IMF

Give it a rest, this is not going to be funded out of IMF borrowing and the costs have ALREADY been factored into the next 4 budgets (though it will be done over a longer period than that). The total cost will be e530m, of which the EIB are funding 170m. The remainder will be funded by Balfour Beatty Captial, whose credit rating (unlike Ireland's) is not junk. If you'd like to check what UK based capital funding institutions are paying we can have a reasoned discussion about this. It's the junk credit rating of our financial institutions, which the government have to pay for in turn causing their junk ratings, which triggers the 9% interest rates that the government would be paying for these borrowings, if it wasn't for the fact that this is one of the projects that will be paid for out of the pension reserve fund - which we've already paid for in taxes etc. Now I'd rather that see a road built that can help to break the economic shackles imposed on the country (that is everything outside the pale) by piss poor infrastructure that the is caused by funneling every last thing through Dublin, than paying the civil servants that caused the financial and infrastructural messes that we are in their pension.

w2_3vc

MYOB wrote: »

Just extremely suspicious in this circumstance, as is using two accounts on the same thread. On any forum I'm a moderator on, that's generally an instant banning offence..

What name I use is none of your business and for the avoidance of doubt I PM'd an actual moderator within 5 mins of the issue being raised.

On many forums you can change the name on the account but in so doing all entries take on the new name; that facility not being open to me I used a new identity and made it perfectly clear be repeating the same phrases that both IDs were the same.

Point closed unless you are unable to stick to the actual discussion.

MYOB wrote: »

And it should. Routing virtually *all* inter-urban traffic via the M50 is a sure fire way to ensure it will need another lane added sooner rather than later.

With the M20 and M17 there would be no need to go via Dublin when there is a shorter similar quality routing. There are currently people who go from Cork to Sligo via the M50 for instance, the Claregalway and Tuam crawls being amongst the main reasons.

Come back to scale which is concept that appears beyond you;

Derry has a population of 90,663 of which a large proportion for cultural reasons do not interact much was the Irish economy. The key transport links are to Belfast and Letterkenny and to a much smaller extent Omagh, Enniskillen, Armagh and Dublin as are trade patterns. You can pretty much divide the population in three in terms of trading relationships given the different currencies, tax systems and cultural factors.


Letterkenny population 17,568 key trading links, Derry, Dublin and to a lesser extent Sligo.

Sligo population 17,892 key trading links Dublin, Longford and to a lesser extent Ballina, Letterkenny, Galway and Castlebar.

The distance of the route from Galway to Letterkenny is 250 kms; add the populations together and include Galway, Sligo, L'Kenny and Derry (this excludes the distance from L'kenny to Derry taken at 1/3rd of the population) it produces a population of 550 per kilometer.

Do the same sum from Dublin metro regions 1.6m is added to Galway's 77k population and including only Athlone (17,700) on the route despite the links to Mullingar and Tullamore and a figure of c7,500 people per kilometer is produced.

On Cork 274,000 to Galway including only Ennis 24,253 and Limerick 90,757
which over 198 kms gives a population of 1,968 per kilometer.

Clearly the population is not there North of Oranmore to justify the route.

w2_3vc

antoobrien wrote: »

Give it a rest, this is not going to be funded out of IMF borrowing and the costs have ALREADY been factored into the next 4 budgets (though it will be done over a longer period than that). The total cost will be e530m, of which the EIB are funding 170m. The remainder will be funded by Balfour Beatty Captial, whose credit rating (unlike Ireland's) is not junk. If you'd like to check what UK based capital funding institutions are paying we can have a reasoned discussion about this. .

Balfour Beatty are not doing this for nothing; having not seen the loan document one can never comment on the specifics of any agreement but I would be extremely surprised if BBC did not insert covenants linked to sovereign credit rating. In any event it is funded by debt and as Greece found out to its cost in the end the bond viligantes sniff out all debt that is "off balance sheet" and add it to the known collective pile for the purposes of assessing the ability of a sovereign to repay the total debt mountain.

antoobrien wrote: »

It's the junk credit rating of our financial institutions, which the government have to pay for in turn causing their junk ratings, which triggers the 9% interest rates that the government would be paying for these borrowings, if it wasn't for the fact that this is one of the projects that will be paid for out of the pension reserve fund - which we've already paid for in taxes etc. Now I'd rather that see a road built that can help to break the economic shackles imposed on the country (that is everything outside the pale) by piss poor infrastructure that the is caused by funneling every last thing through Dublin, than paying the civil servants that caused the financial and infrastructural messes that we are in their pension.

Then make a case for the road beyond it not being located within the pale on objective grounds.

L1011

w2_3vc wrote: »

Come back to scale which is concept that appears beyond you

At no point have I shown that scale is "beyond me". Spatial planning and routefinding do, however, to be things that you cannot handle.

Answer me these two questions:

1: Do you do any long distance driving
2: Do you have any personal knowledge of Galway

Also, before you rattle off census figures you may wish to bear in mind that Sligo, Letterkenny and especially Galway have very large student populations who do not appear on census figures for those towns/city and contribute heavily to traffic patterns.

w2_3vc

I was born in Galway and have family there; I know where Galwegians typically go and where they don't. Our family traditionally always left for the week of the Ballybrit tent; too many badly behaved blow ins .

I do a limited amount of long distance driving; using air and rail where possible; luckily my firm pays for taxi's within reason which takes the incentive out of driving.

I guess all those parents who are paying txes through the nose to pay for these roads will have enough money left over to buy each of their student children cars. Even more ludicrous is the assumption that students will in the absence of economic disadvantage not locate themselves within walking distance of the campus or at worst a single bus route.

So we have gone from vital national transport corridor to students; face it the section between Gort and Oranmore stacks up; north of that there is not the population to justify it.

L1011

If you go on your metric of population of adjacent towns being the important factor, how do you then make a motorway from Gort (under 3000 in the census) to Rathmorrisey (a field in the middle of nowhere) "stack up" as you call it?

It is only important in a national context - as is the M17. Which will be built, whether you like it or not.

Sponge Bob

Nobody in this forum is advocating Type 1 roads north of Tuam so stop introducing these bagatelles.

Your other assertion that certain toll operators received €100m in revenue shortfall top up payments in 2009 is a lie, pure and simple. It would equally be a lie were you to repeat it apropos 2010 as well...no matter what the briefing notes from Tailors Hall say

L1011

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Nobody in this forum is advocating Type 1 roads north of Tuam so stop introducing these bagatelles.

Nor shall it be Type 1 *around* Tuam, for that matter.

w2_3vc

That is complete nonsense although AADT at roughly 11,000 on that section of the N18 is far from favourable; that section can be justified on Shannon being the major airport for the region and Ennis, Limerick and Cork being far closer than Letterkenny.

It is perfectly clear that the population does not exist to justify the routing on M17 which you really have proven to be a local commuter run.

If the NSS were a serious document it would have listed

Cork
Limerick
Galway
Waterford

as hubs to be built in real cities with target populations of

Cork 400,000
Limerick 200,000
Galway 200,000
Waterford 125,000

I see the quirkyness of linking Athlone, Tullamore, Mullingar however; the idea that a spatial strategy be extended to Letterkenny, Dundalk etc was poor judgement. But nothing onto the complete farce that was decentralisation, Trim, Birr, New Ross, Cahersiveen.

The M17 cannot be justified on any objective grounds.

L1011

w2_3vc wrote: »

It is perfectly clear that the population does not exist to justify the routing on M17 which you really have proven to be a local commuter run.

Even ignoring (as you are wilfully doing) its strategic importance, the "local commuter run" traffic means that both Tuam and Claregalway need bypassing and a number of very dangerous sections of road need realigning.

How do you propose doing this in a future-proof manner which cannot be impinged on by development? Bear in mind that the traffic figures from Claregalway to Galway absolutely justify DC.

w2_3vc

Your other assertion that certain toll operators received €100m in revenue shortfall top up payments in 2009 is a lie, pure and simple. It would equally be a lie were you to repeat it apropos 2010 as well...no matter what the briefing notes from Tailors Hall say

Go sue the authors of the article; Nix has a big reputation as Richard Barretts transport guru; I doubt he'd make something like that up.

Are you close enough to the situation to say that the operators were not paid anything?

Are you saying the original demand projections were hit?

From what I hear the M3 is empty pretty much all the time outside commuter peak hours.

You can be sure that the M17 would be even quieter.

w2_3vc

MYOB wrote: »

Even ignoring (as you are wilfully doing) its strategic importance, the "local commuter run" traffic means that both Tuam and Claregalway need bypassing and a number of very dangerous sections of road need realigning..

According to all routings done by the AA and other route planners the M17 did not feature on any of the routes. It has no strategic benefit worth talking about; there aren't even traffic counts north of Tuam to display it.
You consistently refuse to deal with the lack of population further North or the special situation that Shannon Airport brings to the South.

MYOB wrote: »

How do you propose doing this in a future-proof manner which cannot be impinged on by development? Bear in mind that the traffic figures from Claregalway to Galway absolutely justify DC.

I thought this was of strategic national importance as part of a corridor from Cork to Letterkenny; you can't claim the purpose is national route on the one hand and then a local route on the other 8 miles from the city out through suburbia; the distance from the ring road is 6 miles and for the purposes of national transit the N18 fullfills its purpose; I would say that the manner that the N18 intersects with the N17 needs looking at; the right turn going North is most of the problem.

I think with 250,000 units on a scale between empty and sites with engineering works commenced the location of development is known and far less of a consideration that it was during the bubble building years.

Other than a flyover junction there is no justification for this route in times of Lenihan Bros imposed austerity.

mk6705

w2_3vc wrote: »

as hubs to be built in real cities with target populations of

Cork 400,000
Limerick 200,000
Galway 200,000
Waterford 125,000

I see the quirkyness of linking Athlone, Tullamore, Mullingar however; the idea that a spatial strategy be extended to Letterkenny, Dundalk etc was poor judgement. But nothing onto the complete farce that was decentralisation, Trim, Birr, New Ross, Cahersiveen.

The M17 cannot be justified on any objective grounds.

Let's all go live in 5 cities like the Green Party want us to :rolleyes: There's no need for this argument, Letterkenny is a big town, believe it or not people from Donegal do travel south. So a 2+2 road is very justified indeed up there.

Sponge Bob

w2_3vc wrote: »

Go sue the authors of the article; Nix has a big reputation as Richard Barretts transport guru; I doubt he'd make something like that up.

If we are talking Richard Boyd Barretts 'transport' 'guru' then lols.:cool: Frank McDonald did not say exactly who briefed him if you READ the article . You are the first person who attributed the statement about the €100m to any person...in this case I take it that "Nix" is James Nix of misc enviro-thingummybobs and best known as the contact for the Irish Environmental Network which is also funded ( like An Taisce) by the department of the environment.

If James Nix did say that to Frank McDonald...as YOU asserted....I commend immediate withdrawal of all funding from this eco-thingummybob as soon as possible for telling such outrageous and egregious lies in order to distort transport policy.

Are you close enough to the situation to say that the operators were not paid anything?

I can state with absolute certainty that no revenue shortfall payments were made to any operator in 2009. That is because the roads did not open until well into 2010. A real guru would have known that !!

You can be sure that the M17 would be even quieter.

I am sure, however shadow tolling arrangements are different to revenue/traffic shortfall backstop guarantees for actual toll roads

w2_3vc

Adro947 wrote: »

Let's all go live in 5 cities like the Green Party want us to :rolleyes: There's no need for this argument, Letterkenny is a big town, believe it or not people from Donegal do travel south. So a 2+2 road is very justified indeed up there.

Nobody is saying that Letterkenny should not have a good connection to Derry and Lifford. There simply is not the population North of Galway to justify a dual carriageway or Motorway.

Cahersiveen for a decentralisation location; nice.

L1011

w2_3vc wrote: »

According to all routings done by the AA and other route planners the M17 did not feature on any of the routes. It has no strategic benefit worth talking about; there aren't even traffic counts north of Tuam to display it.

That would be because it is not the *current* route due to its low quality and traffic congestion. It is unsustainble to route almost all long distance traffic in the country via the M50. Add in to that that the N7 and M1 are close to capacity near the city.

Also bear in mind that computerised route planners work solely on the idea of dividing road distance by road speed limit, hence the N55 insanity given by the AA.

When the M20, M18 and M17 are built as planned, they *will* be the route for a lot of traffic.

w2_3vc wrote: »

I thought this was of strategic national importance as part of a corridor from Cork to Letterkenny; you can't claim the purpose is national route on the one hand and then a local route on the other 8 miles from the city out through suburbia; the distance from the ring road is 6 miles and for the purposes of national transit the N18 fullfills its purpose; I would say that the manner that the N18 intersects with the N17 needs looking at; the right turn going North is most of the problem.

You're aware something can have a duel purpose, right? Oh wait, clearly not. I said that as you were ignoring the stragetic importance we'd concentrate on the local traffic that you are at least willing to admit exists.

The traffic figures through Claregalway are sufficient that it needs bypassing - with a DC - irrelevant of what is done to the T junction in the town.

Tuam also needs bypassing, and there is major safety work required in between. Again - how do you propose doing these in a future proof manner? A GSJ for the N17/N18 junction does not address even a single one of these points.

Sponge Bob

w2_3vc wrote: »

Cahersiveen for a decentralisation location; nice.

That is actually spelt Caherciveen (sic) and decentralisation is nothing to do with the risibly silly assertions in the Irish Times article on which this thread is based.

There should be a type 2 road from Tuam to Derry including retrofits to the WS2 segments that have hitherto been built to increase their effective carrying capacity and overall safety.

mk6705

Sponge Bob wrote: »

That is actually spelt Caherciveen (sic) and decentralisation is nothing to do with the risibly silly assertions in the Irish Times article on which this thread is based.

There should be a type 2 road from Tuam to Derry including retrofits to the WS2 segments that have hitherto been built to increase their effective carrying capacity and overall safety.

It can be spelt Caherciveen or Cahirciveen actually. It's similar to Cahir and Caher, it's even spelt differently at different locations on roadsigns.

w2_3vc

Sponge Bob wrote: »

If we are talking Richard Boyd Barretts 'transport' 'guru' then lols.:cool: Frank McDonald did not say exactly who briefed him if you READ the article . You are the first person who attributed the statement about the €100m to any person...in this case I take it that "Nix" is James Nix of misc enviro-thingummybobs and best known as the contact for the Irish Environmental Network which is also funded ( like An Taisce) by the department of the environment.

If James Nix did say that to Frank McDonald...as YOU asserted....I commend immediate withdrawal of all funding from this eco-thingummybob as soon as possible for telling such outrageous and egregious lies in order to distort transport policy.

I can state with absolute certainty that no revenue shortfall payments were made to any operator in 2009. That is because the roads did not open until well into 2010. A real guru would have known that !!

The exact quote in the article was

Taxpayers face a €100m bill over the life of PPP contracts based on a scenario favourable to the NRA (i.e. traffic growth assumed from 2011)

I hope this clarifies the position; given that net migration is now net emmigration and that traffic volumes are falling it seems like a more than reasonable set of assumptions were adopted.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I am sure, however shadow tolling arrangements are different to revenue/traffic shortfall backstop guarantees for actual toll roads

For what is in essence a commuter run; what is the problem with making it stack up on commercial grounds; you build the nationally important section of Oranmore - Gort and toll it and carry out a feasibility study on tolling the north section; I suspect they did the feasibility study and that there were no takers from the infrastructure funds who invest in these types of project.

w2_3vc

Sponge Bob wrote: »

That is actually spelt Caherciveen (sic) and decentralisation is nothing to do with the risibly silly assertions in the Irish Times article on which this thread is based.
.

The fact that someone can't spell the location of a decentralisation recipient which 'was compliant with the NSS' tells its own story. There has been no spatial planning in Ireland during the past decade more a case of a 'theres one for everybody in the audience approach'

Sponge Bob wrote: »

There should be a type 2 road from Tuam to Derry including retrofits to the WS2 segments that have hitherto been built to increase their effective carrying capacity and overall safety.

What is going to pay for it? After the year 2010 has turned out to be how anyone could suggest the above is unreal; are you going to say the IMF was a fiction and that were back to the bond markets at bund + 50bps?

Or is it for Jim McDaid to make sure he can't miss?

Sponge Bob

w2_3vc wrote: »

The fact that someone can't spell the location of a decentralisation recipient which 'was compliant with the NSS' tells its own story. There has been no spatial planning in Ireland during the past decade more a case of a 'theres one for everybody in the audience approach'

Again, this is all irrelevant, it was not in the times article.

You have not withdrawn the blatantly incorrect assertion you made that €100m toll revenue shortfalls were exchequer funded in 2009 ....you blamed someone called "Nix" instead.

What is going to pay for it? After the year 2010 has turned out to be how anyone could suggest the above is unreal; are you going to say the IMF was a fiction and that were back to the bond markets at bund + 50bps?

I did not say by when did I ??

w2_3vc

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Again, this is all irrelevant, it was not in the times article.

It is in addition to the IT article which was on the practice of the NRA buying an asset class that is declining in value at a time they didn't need it and at a time when funding is very expensive.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You have not withdrawn the blatantly incorrect assertion you made that €100m toll revenue shortfalls were exchequer funded in 2009 ....you blamed someone called "Nix" instead.

I have clarified that it is over the life of the PPP; and I stand over what I said of James Nix, he doesn't get things wrong. The point is however correct; the NRA in over estimating traffic usage has cost the exchquer an estimated €100m; I did say 2009 which is not correct . I have corrected the timeline on this the headline figure was always correct.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I did not say by when did I ??

As long as you say after 2025 I am prepared to take a very open mind on future long term population distribution changes; there are far too many other important things to be done in the interim such as Dart Underground, public transport improvements for Cork, buying high end FDI projects.

When Tuam stacks up as a toll road it desrves one until then it should take its place in the que behind more viable projects. The further risk of building M17 is the M50 effect of funnelling everything on to a distributor road; you build the M17 you then local planners only concerned with their own specific ward will justify another 10,000 one offs in North Galway and hey presto Galway is gunthered because there is no money for an outer bypass. Further impacts would be at national level through the near monopoly on development land NAMA hold; would be drained down by 10,000 units less because housing demand is channelled away from where the taxpayer has its interest i.e. more normal suburban development on public transport corridors; i.e. this motorway would contribute to a slowing down in shifting land the state never wanted but through its governance of the planning and banking systems acquired.

The alternative of twin tracking the rail line to Athenry will drain commuter traffic off the M6 at Athenry from Ballinsloe, Loughrea, M18 at Oranmore draining commuter traffic from the Burren and Gort and N18 again served by an Ornamore park n ride station to drain out much of the Tuam traffic from the over burdened Claregalway to ring road stretch is far cheaper in the short and medium terms. The system would work something along the lines of you get a season ticket which gives a car space in a designated park and ride site and free commuter travel; companies fund season tickets for employees and deduct them in 12 monthly salary deductions; the companies by not requiring so much parking have cheaper occupancy costs of about €500 per employee per annum which more than covers the finance costs of the €1,000 - €1,500 ticket costs. The employee has no massive hit in any given month and saves a lot of money in fuel costs by eliminating congested urban driving.

Sponge Bob

w2_3vc wrote: »

I have clarified that it is over the life of the PPP; and I stand over what I said of James Nix, he doesn't get things wrong. The point is however correct; the NRA in over estimating traffic usage has cost the exchquer an estimated €100m; I did say 2009 which is not correct .
but I have corrected the timeline on this the headline figure was correct.

That is quite different from what you originally said. The €100 cost to the exchequer, if it arises , will largely be in the future ....not in 2009.

The loss will not be caused by traffic shortfalls per se. It will be caused by incorrect toll pricing which incorrect pricing diverts traffic onto the regional road network. Putting 2 tolls between Kells and Dublin was bloody stupid and the traffic shortfall may not have occured were there one well placed and priced toll south of Navan instead. I accept that the twin toll prices traffic off the M3.

The N7 Limerick Tunnel subvention is only for the first few years irrespective of traffic thereafter, it was discussed extensively hereabouts as indeed are all of these matters.

Can you provide a link to what James Nix actually said in future and to quote him directly rather than attempt to paraphrase him, thanks.

As long as you say after 2025 I am prepared to take a very open mind on future long term population distribution changes; there are far too many other important things to be done in the interim such as Dart Underground, public transport improvements for Cork, buying high end FDI projects.

While many things wiill change by 2025 the need for 2 robust north south transport and logistic corridors will not go away

When Tuam stacks up as a toll road it desrves one until then it should take its place in the que behind more viable projects. The further risk of building M17 is the M50 effect of funnelling everything on to a distributor road; you build the M17 you then justify another 10,000 one offs in North Galway and hey presto Galway is gunthered because there is no money for an outer bypass.

One off houses did not create the need for a Galway bypass, the construction of Knocknatallaght did. North Galway already has far too many one offs and ghost estates, there is very little chance of 10,000 new one offs being built between now an 2025 up there.

The alternative of twin tracking the rail line to Athenry will drain commuter traffic off the M6 at Athenry from Ballinsloe, Loughrea, M18 at Oranmore draining commuter traffic from the Burren and Gort and N18 to drain out much of the Tuam traffic from the over burdened Claregalway to ring road stretch is far cheaper in the short and medium terms.

Ummm yahhhh, whatever. :cool: I can't really follow that overall multimodal premise.

This twin tracking project you mentioned would cost €180m and will not happen The Western Rail Corridor idiocy should be sh1tcanned forthwith and replaced by Express buses...although the market looks likely to move that way already.

w2_3vc

Sponge Bob wrote: »

That is quite different from what you originally said. The €100 cost to the exchequer, if it arises , will largely be in the future ....not in 2009.

The loss will not be caused by traffic shortfalls per se. It will be caused by incorrect toll pricing which incorrect pricing diverts traffic onto the regional road network. Putting 2 tolls between Kells and Dublin was bloody stupid and the traffic shortfall may not have occured were there one well placed and priced toll south of Navan instead. I accept that the twin toll prices traffic off the M3.

The N7 Limerick Tunnel subvention is only for the first few years irrespective of traffic thereafter, it was discussed extensively hereabouts as indeed are all of these matters. .

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Can you provide a link to what James Nix actually said in future and to quote him directly rather than attempt to paraphrase him, thanks. .

Below in italics is the relevant exceprt



Actual traffic on the M3 is 22 per cent – almost 5,000 vehicles a day – below the level at which penalty payments must be made. Traffic would have to reach 26,250 vehicles a day to avoid penalty payments; the current daily traffic is in or around 21,500.

Traffic using the Limerick tunnel is 26 per cent (3,500 vehicles) below the penalty fee level. To avoid penalty payments 17,000 need to pass through the tunnel a day; the actual traffic level is around 13,500 vehicles a day.

According to the environmental organisations, the bill to taxpayers will be at least €100m over the lifetime of the contracts but will be far higher in the event traffic levels remain static or continue to fall in coming years.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

While many things wiill change by 2025 the need for 2 robust north south transport and logistic corridors will not go away.

It isn't there now; what you have now is almost a orbital main road of M7/M8/M20/M18/M6/M4 with an projection into M1 with various tributaries being complimented by a number of lessor tributeries running out of Dublin, Cork etc and various other combinations be it N52 / N55 / N80 none of which are perfect but each deals with journeys that exist in the much smaller quantum that reflects the low population density of this Island. It is worth reflecting the area in the UK between the M6/M5/M42 although smaller than Country Kildare has a higher population that the RoI.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

One off houses did not create the need for a Galway bypass, the construction of Knocknatallaght did. North Galway already has far too many one offs and ghost estates, there is very little chance of 10,000 new one offs being built between now an 2025 up there.

But that area wouldn't be served by the M17 and you can be sure that in todays less heated market purchasers will have a greater choice of locations at better prices to chose from; the passing of the days of home buyers being scared of the market getting away from them will result in far better places to live in livability terms i.e. bigger gardens, driveways, room to extend later.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Ummm yahhhh, whatever. :cool: I can't really follow that overall multimodal premise.

This twin tracking project you mentioned would cost €180m and will not happen .

Not convinced it would costs €180m; 15 miles on a trackbed that was designed as twin track; the park and ride would also be income producing.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The Western Rail Corridor idiocy should be sh1tcanned forthwith and replaced by Express buses...although the market looks likely to move that way already.

Couldn't agree more; I had some lively discussions in 2005 on the subject; it would never have worked; the best they can hope for is to build a few commuter stations between Ennis and Limerick at places like Cratloe and close the section of the route from Ennis north. No single project has damaged the rail brand in Ireland as the western rail corridor; it did have one benefit though; it scoped the route for the M18 as being far enough North for the Western Hub motorway.

L1011

w2_3vc wrote: »

N18 again served by an Ornamore park n ride station to drain out much of the Tuam traffic from the over burdened Claregalway to ring road stretch is far cheaper in the short and medium terms.

This is completely and utterly unworkable.

Firstly, much of the traffic coming in along that stretch of road is not going anywhere near Ceannt. Even with the opening of a station in between you're not taking much away. The traffic going to anywhere other than the city centre and possibly Renmore won't use a P&R. People will not modal shift twice - they are not going to drive to an Oranmore P&R, get on a train and change to city buses.

Secondly, if a large amount of traffic DID use it, it would make Claregalway worse, particularly in the evenings with right-turners. Your idea of GSJing the junction is completely unworkable (due to the space required and also continuing to push all traffic through Claregalway) without effectively extending the N18 north of Claregalway, say to the N63 and putting a GSJ there.

Thirdly, the N18 from Claregalway to where it becomes DC would not be able to handle the extra traffic you seem to think would exist. The junction with the M6 is not designed for it, the traffic lights at Carnmore are not designed for it, etc, etc.

Fourthly, at times up to 30% of the traffic through Claregalway in a given direction are heavy commercial vehicles. I'd estimate another 20% are light commercials. Commercial vehicles of any description will not shift to a P&R.

We're currently looking at the 150M for the dualling, a couple of mil for the extra station in Renmore (That realistically should be built anyway), maybe 40M to do the required road works at Claregalway... cheaper? Yeah right.

Realistically, a car to bus P&R north of Claregalway would actually make more sense and cost an awful lot less, but would still fail to get many cars off the roads

limklad

w2_3vc wrote: »

It is currently a two lane road which has no congestion issues outside commuting hours; national traffic fell by 7% last year and you are advocating building a road with over 100% over capacity when the IMF is signing the cheques.....

So is the M50 is a ghost at night. Should we reduce the number of lanes on that road after building the extra lanes? I often travel that road (M50) at night with very little traffic even passing a dumbass travelling 50kph on the second overtaking lane while I was in the driving lane which was free for the eye can see.

A large white elephant that will make the M3 look like a success. Concentrate resources where they are needed, Dublin Underground, FDI grants and route subsidies for more air routes out of Shannon. I know there is an election next year and all parties are setting out their stalls but this project is sheer lunacy.

Dublin Underground is not needed if you properly use the combination of Luas and Dart lines with Dublin Bus to full effect. Right now Dublin Bus is competing with both rails rather than feeding into the Dart and Luas. A Side spur from the Dart Line to Dublin Airport would be appropriate to Connelly Station. Upgrade the route from Connelly to Heuston Station via the Phoenix Park Underground that could be upgraded without expensive digging up more of Dublin. Dublin Public Transport is a disaster because it was not planned properly and all of it was disjointed. I have travelled in many foreign cities public transport which is a dream in comparison to public transport here in this country in term of ease of transport, costs and on-time arrival times. We need roads in this country because the government and government back agencies do not have joint up thinking and all are competing with each other and the Government have now cut back on Public Transport spending, including rural buses forcing more cars onto the roads.

SeanW

Cress wrote: »

Meath alone has four motorways going through it.

Whatever about the other road-skeptical arguments made in this thread, I had to call out this old canard, because like many insolvent arguments, this one looks good at first glance. However:

1. If you look at Dublin's county boundaries, the majority of it is with Meath. About 2/3s of it, all the Co. Dublin boundary between Lucan/Leixlip North to the sea, is Dublin/Meath. The balance is made up of Kildare and Wicklow (mountains). It should logically follow that Meath will host a plurality of Dublin - Smaller City motorways, unless one chooses to ignore the laws of physics.
2. Partly linked to Point 1, many of the "Four motorways in Meath" have almost nothing to do with Meath or are very short - take the M1 for example, it takes the shortest route possible from Co. Dublin to Drogheda. A really great long, Meath Motorway :rolleyes: The M2 is so short it's not worth talking about, and the M4, again it only runs a very short distance in Meath as the shortest route from North Kildare to Westmeath.
   By your standard, you should also count the M6 as "Meaths Fifth Motorway" because according to both Google Maps and OpenStreetMap.org, the M4-M6 split happens with Meath's county boundary. Of course that would be a super-pedantic stretch of the imagination, and a silly argument, but only marginally more so than calling the M1 etc a "Meath Motorway."

Sponge Bob

w2_3vc wrote: »

Not convinced it would costs €180m; 15 miles on a trackbed that was designed as twin track; the park and ride would also be income producing.

That is what CIE said it would cost.

No single project has damaged the rail brand in Ireland as the western rail corridor; it did have one benefit though; it scoped the route for the M18 as being far enough North for the Western Hub motorway.

Best stop building silly railways and replace them with express buses...running reliable timetables on Motorways and Dual Carriageways