Today's infrastructure announcement - why no public transport?

OssianSmyth

Here is some detail:
http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Briefing-Note-17-7-12-_2_2.pdf

Last year, two rounds of multi-annual reductions in capital spending were announced in April and November. Capital spending was cut twice to bridge a gap in current spending.



Today, the government announces that it has found an additional €850m for road projects. Which is great because that means that road spending will actually be higher over the coming 4 years than was envisaged in 2010. Road spending will increase by 16%.

However, no additional public transport will be funded. Public transport capital spending has been reduced by 70% compared to 2010 planning.

These actions show the clear belief of government that public transport is relatively worthless compared to road spending.

There are many obvious areas of waste in public spending. RTE will collect an annual €196m in subsidy to run its super efficient operation over its 30 acre campus in Dublin 4, Bord Na Mona will collect an annual €70m in subsidy to burn soggy turf in its power stations.

But there is no money for public transport at a time when tender prices are one third below peak and land prices are a small fraction of what they were.

From the Fine Gael/Labour programme for government :

We recognise the need to rebalance transport policy to favour public transport

GPS manufacturer said last week that Dublin was the sixth most congested city in Europe.

If this is what it's like during a slump, what will it be like if the economy picks up and why would a company or an employee want to locate to Dublin if commuting will be so unpleasant?

Judgement Day

I thought that everybody knew that every holy shrine, parish pump and crossroad in Ireland needs a motorway or bypass. They will still be building them as the last oil comes out of the ground. :rolleyes:

Still it's an ill wind and all the Turkish road building contractors must be rubbing their hands.

Neworder79

Luas BXD line and CIE investment projects already announced in 2012 capital budget.

Multi billion Metro and Dart project would dwarf the 2BN package.

Simples.

Judgement Day

What about the completion of the Navan rail line - that wouldn't have been excessive?

bk

Well one mistake you are making, better roads are an investment in public transport.

After all the majority of public transport users in Ireland travel on buses on roads. These new roads will allow for faster, more frequent, bus coach services.

Just because it isn't rail doesn't mean it isn't public transport.

The M17/18 project will benefit everyone in the west of Ireland, including public transport users much better then the WRC ever will.

Luas BXD and Irish Rail improvement projects had already been funded in 2012. Unfortunately, despite how much I want them, MN and DU are far too expensive and even one of them would have cost more then the entire 2 billion. And there are no other shovel ready rail projects that fit in that budget.

Unfortunately we are running out of the cheap, easy to do projects, after these projects we are really only left with pretty expensive projects like M20, DU and MN.

bk

Just to make the point, number of passengers carried per year:

Dublin Bus: 150 million
Bus Eireann: 80 million
Irish Rail: 39 million
Luas: 30 million

So bus carries a total of 230 million passengers per year versus 69 million by rail. And that doesn't include all the private companies like Aircoach, Citylink, Swords Express, etc. Probably add a few more million for all of these.

Sponge Bob

There are 40+ express buses daily between Galway and Dublin. More or less on an hour from 6am to 10pm. Express bus networks rely on Motorways.

A return bus ticket is cheaper than parking in Dublin City Centre for 8 hours.

OssianSmyth

Better roads do improve conditions for bus users but now that the interurbans have been built, the benefit is slight compared to other ways of spending public money to improve public mobility.

Dublin Bus does not benefit from motorway road schemes. Your figures are at least 25% overstated for DB passengers

BE may feel some small benefit for its customer base travelling between New Ross and Enniscorthy. In practice none of the road schemes announced will have high public transport use. Your figures are 100% overstated for BE passengers. Each scheme will encourage additional car use, further dispersal of housing and long distance commuting.

One problem for motorway buses replacing rail service in Ireland is that they have to be configured as direct point to point services to gain a speed benefit. A fast M11 bus service would need separate services for Arklow-Dublin, Gorey-Dublin, Enniscorthy Dublin, Wexford-Dublin. Individually these services may not justify high frequencies. In practice intercity direct bus services may be the only routes that use the motorways.

One good thing about the money poured into urban roads last year, was that cycling was improved with fewer potholes.

DU and MN are not unaffordable, instead the state has chosen to spend the money elsewhere. This is a value judgement. What would MN cost? €150/200m per year?

RTE earns €175m in commercial revenue. The state chooses to give an additional €196m/year to RTE because it believes that this is a better way to spend money than building a metro in Dublin. There are hundreds of other value judgements of this kind. After all the state will spend 68bn this year.

The 500m offered by the EIB for MN has been rejected. The capital project proposals are contrary to the government's stated policies on modal split, emissions, energy efficiency, use of renewables in transport and so on. They will be handy for people living near by to drive on.

A cynic would see Howlin's choice of a large motorway scheme and bypass in Wexford as reminiscent of Cullen's choice of the same in Waterford.

---

Passenger numbers for CIE group in 2010: http://www.cie.ie/about_us/pdf/CIE%20Annual%20Report%202010.pdf

Sponge Bob

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Better roads do improve conditions for bus users but now that the interurbans have been built, the benefit is slight compared to other ways of spending public money to improve public mobility.

The Interurbans have not been built. We are missing chunks of Motorway between Cork and Tuam, not all of which were addressed in todays announcement.

Once we have Motorway from Tuam to Cork and out to Longford we will have completed the Motorway network in the state.

Dublin Bus does not benefit from motorway road schemes. Your figures are at least 25% overstated for DB passengers

In that interurban buses deposit in the city centre they do. But not hugely.

BE may feel some small benefit for its customer base travelling between New Ross and Enniscorthy. In practice none of the road schemes announced will have high public transport use.

Historically not owing to crap roads and congestion, have you examined how much Express Bus usage has grown by on the already completed interurbans before you fired that one off??

Each scheme will encourage additional car use, further dispersal of housing and long distance commuting.

No they won't. That is a typical An Tasice and Nix myth given modern petrol prices and I won't even entertain it.

One problem for motorway buses replacing rail service in Ireland is that they have to be configured as direct point to point services to gain a speed benefit. A fast M11 bus service would need separate services for Arklow-Dublin, Gorey-Dublin, Enniscorthy Dublin, Wexford-Dublin. Individually these services may not justify high frequencies. In practice intercity direct bus services may be the only routes that use the motorways.

That is correct. Very few buses stop in Athlone nowadays...never mind smaller towns.

One good thing about the money poured into urban roads last year, was that cycling was improved with fewer potholes.

Eh?? Never minds.

DU and MN are not unaffordable, instead the state has chosen to spend the money elsewhere. This is a value judgement. What would MN cost? €150/200m per year?

I dunno. It cost the guts of €200m so far in planning alone I should think.

RTE earns €175m in commercial revenue. The state chooses to give an additional €196m/year to RTE because it believes that this is a better way to spend money than building a metro in Dublin. There are hundreds of other value judgements of this kind. After all the state will spend 68bn this year.

We are comparing apples and oranges...or more likely aspadistras and fragmentation grenades here.

The 500m offered by the EIB for MN has been rejected.

Parked.

Passenger numbers for CIE group in 2010: http://www.cie.ie/about_us/pdf/CIE%20Annual%20Report%202010.pdf

Thanks.

Aidan1

That is a typical An Tasice and Nix myth given modern petrol prices and I won't even entertain it.

You might not want to entertain it, but you should. For a start, the fuel price thing is a red herring - not least because both the empirical evidence and the history suggest that demand for transport fuel is extremely inelastic - it only mitigates in extreme circumstances, and never for very long.

The sprawl of urban generated housing into peri-urban and outright rural areas is a well understood characteristic of our recent past, driven in no small part by a combination of the road building programme and extremely lax planning. Section 2.6 of this report has a good account of it (the entire report is worth a read in fact);

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/PlanningDevelopment/NationalSpatialStrategy/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,24144,en.pdf

If you are looking for some good examples of where Motorway development led to a housing sprawl, facilitated by lax planning, have a look at Laois. It grew in population by 20% in the last intercensal period, almost entirely on the back of long distance commuting to Dublin (the number of people working in the county grew by far less). Cavan is another example - in both cases, County Councils zoned like crazy to take advantage of the new (or shortly to be delivered Motorways), eventually zoning far more land for housing than could ever be needed (from memory, in the case of Laois, by a factor of 3). As such, there can be no doubt that Motorway development in Ireland has categorically contributed to a far wider population distribution than is ideal. That fact that this was predicted by the likes of An Taisce or Frank McDonald doesn't make it any less true, even if it is a little annoying when they're right.

The solution, obviously, is to build the roads and to ensure that the planning system is (a) aligned on a national and strategic basis, and (b) robust enough to fend off the type of developer led gombeenism we've seen in the recent past. Perhaps the 2010 Act will be sufficient to deliver this, who knows, but a good shake up of local Govt would help also.

On the plans announced yesterday - essentially this is a pretty effective piece of packaging by the Govt in that they have announced two projects are going to proceed, and have glided over the fact that these have already been "announced" repeatedly, and that all this really contains is a new financing facility. That doesn't subtract from the fact that it is welcome news that they're going to go ahead, and proponents of public transport should welcome them. It clears the decks for MN and the Interconnector if and when any EU stimulus funds are made available (both of these projects are far more likely to automatically qualify past any EU thresholds due to the evaluation already completed) - neither can be brought to fruitition as quickly as these roads, schools, universities and healthcare facilities.

The 500m offered by the EIB for MN has been rejected.

Really? Reduced to repeating FF lines now?

Also Ossian, BnM only own one peat fired power station, ESB own two more. The BnM one is far more efficient, and also happens to run out of subsidy in 2015.

AngryLips

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Here is some detail:
http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Briefing-Note-17-7-12-_2_2.pdf

Last year, two rounds of multi-annual reductions in capital spending were announced in April and November. Capital spending was cut twice to bridge a gap in current spending.

Is this a comparison of capital expenditure or total expenditure? I think we all recognise that roads have higher OpEx costs than exclusively public transport infrastructure.

bk

Aidan1 wrote: »

You might not want to entertain it, but you should. For a start, the fuel price thing is a red herring - not least because both the empirical evidence and the history suggest that demand for transport fuel is extremely inelastic - it only mitigates in extreme circumstances, and never for very long.

Good point, I was reading the Irish Rail 2030 vision report recently and Goodbody found that if the cost of a barrel of oil doubled, it would lead to only a 30% increase in the price at the pump (due to so much of the cost being tax), which in turn would lead to at max only a 10% increase in rail. They estimated a 1 - 4% increase in rail to be far more likely.

Aidan1 wrote: »

The sprawl of urban generated housing into peri-urban and outright rural areas is a well understood characteristic of our recent past, driven in no small part by a combination of the road building programme and extremely lax planning.

Yes, but it is the lax planning that is the issue, not motoroways.

After all Germany and France have some of the finest motorway networks in the world, yet over 90% of their populations live in urban areas (it is 60% in Ireland).

The problem in Ireland was the lax planning laws that allowed one off houses to be built all along roads up and down the country.

Fortunately the motorways actually go a long way to fixing this. The NTA have control of planning along the new motorways and strictly forbid the building of housing along the new motorways. Instead housing is being encouraged to be built in towns and villages at the end of off ramps off the motorways, thus encouraging higher density living.

As for OssianSmyth's comments, my point was to highlight that most people seem to think public transport is rail only and then conveniently forget that bus is public transport too. I was just making the point that bus might not be very "sexy" like rail, but it is extremely important and in fact it is the most important form of public transport, carrying 4 to 5 times the number of passengers of rail every year.

Road improvement projects, including motorways do help bus based public transport. Just look at the success of GoBus/Citylink to Galway, DublinCoach to Limerick, Aircoach to Cork, BE/Ulsterbus to Belfast. All carrying millions of passengers between our cities every year.

I say all this through clenched teeth, as I'm a big fan of rapid mass transport. I think Dublin desperately needs DU and MN. But realistically they were never going to fit in this 2B budget. Nor was the M20, which I also think is a desperately needed project (both in terms of being one of the most dangerous roads in the country and economic terms of connecting our three regional cities and creating a counter balance to Dublin).

I believe the government way over emphasised road building over the past 10 years. I think all the motorways should have been built, but I also think either MN or DU should have also been started in that time, with some parts of the motorways deferred until now.

What I'd like to see is a commitment and progress towards these three super projects. MN and DU have their planning permission now. Why not take the opportunity of depressed property prices to buy up any land needed for these projects and to protect the alignment. For the M20, get the planning stage completed ASAP and get it to shovel ready as soon as possible. Again also start buying up land for it now when it is cheap. Perhaps break it up into two schemes, the southern end + Cork NRR and the northern end. Thus making it a more palatable project when future funding comes up.

What is interesting is that we are starting to run out of road projects to do and easy rail projects to do. In a few years the government will be faced with only MN and DU being the only projects left to do and they will thus have to bite the bullet and go ahead with them.

Sponge Bob

To Aidan and BK both.

The most important factor in discouraging sprawl is to ensure that housing in the employment centres ( Dublin and Galway and Cork lets say) is of much higher quality.

Many of the sprawlers in Laois and Cavan did so to avoid the grossly substandard housing on offer in Dublin and moved to where they had some control of the house itself...ie detached on half an acre.

Our national inclination towards the half acre and detached must be curbed and that must start close to the employment itself. As for Frank McDonald, his world view does not pass Lucan so if you don't mind I'll ignore him as he does me.

To get back to infrastructure, the problem is that the Motorway projects are costing c. €300-400m each and that at least €100m is spent on Gort-Tuam already...... where MN is €2bn and DU €4bn.

IE had no shovel ready project in the €200m-400m space and could not get funding for that which was not ready. Same with the RPA, no Cherrywood Bray for example.

Missing projects in that space are, eg, Tuam - Athenry . Dunboyne - Navan, Baldoyle - Airport. Dublin - Cork higher speed rebuiild. etc .

I blame IE for not having them ready. The roads were ready to roll ....the N18 section as much as 5 years back.

Aidan1

After all Germany and France have some of the finest motorway networks in the world, yet over 90% of their populations live in urban areas (it is 60% in Ireland).

It's slightly higher than that in Ireland - around 62%*, which is still very low. Critically, that figure includes towns over 1,500 classified as urban, and we have a lot of those now (as the 2011 census makes very clear) - the fastest growing urban areas in Ireland are towns below 3,000 in size. It's not like we have a number of very large cities that require high speed connections, like Germany. Instead, we have a dense network of small towns, one primate city, one substantial city and 3 small ones, and 40ish towns over 10,000 people. Again, there are some profound historical reasons for this - most of the rest of Europe passed parity in the 19th century, we didn't pass that point until the mid 1960s, and we have little experience of large industrial cities.

The key point being that while we are urbanising in terms of population, with the rural component is either static or falling and the numbers only propped up by urban generated rural housing, our urban development is spread over a very large number of towns, villages and cities, with a great many of them too small to support or justify public transport services, and compounded by the fact that many of them are poorly planned to begin with. This is why buses are so useful in much of Ireland - the density to support rail simply doesn't exist in much of the country. It's also why there is a rationale for a more robust motorway network in Ireland than our outright population would seem to indicate. It also shows just how much of a missed opportunity the NSS in 2002 was.

I say all this through clenched teeth, as I'm a big fan of rapid mass transport. I think Dublin desperately needs DU and MN. But realistically they were never going to fit in this 2B budget. Nor was the M20, which I also think is a desperately needed project (both in terms of being one of the most dangerous roads in the country and economic terms of connecting our three regional cities and creating a counter balance to Dublin).

Exactly.


* Page 13 of this bad boy ...http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011pdr/Census%202011%20Highlights%20Part%201%20web%2072dpi.pdf

Aidan1

The most important factor in discouraging sprawl is to ensure that housing in the employment centres ( Dublin and Galway and Cork lets say) is of much higher quality.

Worryingly, I agree. Ensuring that public transport systems and other infrastructure systems are up to scratch, that jobs continue to be delivered in these cities, and that strategic spatial landuse and transport planning within regions works properly are also essential. People will only live in cities if they actively want to.

purplepanda

OssianSmyth wrote: »

A cynic would see Howlin's choice of a large motorway scheme and bypass in Wexford as reminiscent of Cullen's choice of the same in Waterford.

A realist would say that the South East has been left last on the list of infrastructure projects & spending compared to other regions that don't have the same strategic importance & location as a gateway to the UK & Europe.

bk

Lots of great points made over the last few posts.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The most important factor in discouraging sprawl is to ensure that housing in the employment centres ( Dublin and Galway and Cork lets say) is of much higher quality.

Agree completely. In Ireland most apartments seem to be built for young people and not for families like you find in Europe.

That is starting to change, I live in a large apartment close to the city, but it should have been changed 10 years ago, before most of the building.

Another big factor is making cities attractive places to be and live. Frankly Irish cities aren't very nice. Too many cars and buses and not enough pedestrianised streets and public squares.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Dublin - Cork higher speed rebuiild. etc .

What do you mean by this?

OssianSmyth

I agree with the idea that one off isolated housing was a response to poor alternative housing choices. Village suburban, flimsy urban microsemi, rural shoebox apartments etc. Time to learn now. A 30km motorway from Galway into countryside will lead to car dependent exurban housing at junctions with attendant negative costs for society.

Is Kildare Route project II not ready to go?
How about projects to improve line speeds through track relaying? eg Cork-Dublin bottlenecks
-electrification eg Maynooth

Some of these projects could be considered part of DU.

BXD commencement is planned for 2015/2016. This may spill into the term of the next administration. There is no railway order yet and two years spent with ABP already.

Sponge Bob

bk wrote: »

What do you mean by this?

When IE realised they would not get €4bn for DU they rapidly prepared 2 lesser plans in order to get their lips clapped onto the funding teat.

1. The Clongriffin - Dublin Airport spur.
2. To improve the Dublin - Cork track for faster running, 130kph I think. This was announced by IE about a year ago and would 'only' cost €175m-€200m.

I think the actual design plans were not ready then (or indeed now) so it is as yet unfundable.

OssianSmyth wrote: »

Is Kildare Route project II not ready to go?

God no. It took years before they even admitted they would have to do and they were very scowly at poor old Sponge Bob for reminding them of the 'missing link' ....it but they have not even 'consulted' around Cherry Orchard and Ballyfermot where back gardens will disappear forever.

bk

Sponge Bob wrote: »

1. The Clongriffin - Dublin Airport spur.
2. To improve the Dublin - Cork track for faster running, 130kph I think. This was announced by IE about a year ago and would 'only' cost €175m-€200m.

Neither of which seem particularly good or necessary projects to me.

OssianSmyth

AngryLips wrote: »

Is this a comparison of capital expenditure or total expenditure? I think we all recognise that roads have higher OpEx costs than exclusively public transport infrastructure.

It's all capex.

Railway track maintenance is regarded as capex under the railway safety programme and counts for about 40% of projected public transport spending. 'Smarter travel' bike lanes & footpaths come under the same heading.

I haven't found a breakdown of the spend on road maintenance vs new build.

UK highways agency estimates motorway maintenance at £32k//lane-mile or about €250K/km. We have 1,000km so that's about €250m/year motorway maintenance costs. I don't know if we are planning to spend this much.

Sponge Bob

OssianSmyth wrote: »

UK highways agency estimates motorway maintenance at £32k//lane-mile or about €250K/km. We have 1,000km so that's about €250m/year motorway maintenance costs. I don't know if we are planning to spend this much.

We aren't. This is the old Aspidistra and Frag Grenade problem again where apples and oranges simply don't cut the mustard.

1. UK Motorways carry more traffic = more wear and tear.
2. UK Motorways cannot cope with shutdowns owing to lack of alternative routes. Therefore contraflows and night working is more common and this is more costly.
3. UK Motorways are much older than Irish ones and are partially life expired meaning that maintenance = rebuild not maintenance = maintenance.

So in short, of COURSE it costs more in the UK and that is irelevant here until we have a scutch of 50 year old motorways.

monument

If there was real commitment to public transport and somebody at the top was clued-in, money could have been provided for the first one or two decent quality BRT routes in Dublin. Consultants are due to report options to the NTA soon and planning for reworking roads for BRT can be done a lot quicker than, say, a new road or rail line. The work is also job-heavy as required under the package.

But this is Dublin and many councillors are already focused on making sure bus lane hours are kept limited so people can drive a km or less and park outside their local shops -- planning BRT could drag on for years.

bk

monument wrote: »

If there was real commitment to public transport and somebody at the top was clued-in, money could have been provided for the first one or two decent quality BRT routes in Dublin. Consultants are due to report options to the NTA soon and planning for reworking roads for BRT can be done a lot quicker than, say, a new road or rail line. The work is also job-heavy as required under the package.

I guess BRT's will happen anyway, funded separately under another scheme. They aren't really particularly expensive to do anyway.

kc56

Sponge Bob wrote: »

2. To improve the Dublin - Cork track for faster running, 130kph I think. This was announced by IE about a year ago and would 'only' cost €175m-€200m.

I think the actual design plans were not ready then (or indeed now) so it is as yet unfundable.

Dublin-Cork is already at 145-160kph (90-100mph). The IE plan mostly consisted of incremental improvements to track to enable 160kph throughout the route (and also to Galway) principally re-laying with UIC 60 track, removing speed restrictions and other track-bed improvements. As such it didn't need major planning as it was accelerating an already existing plan.

130kph (80mph) is the max speed limit on most of the single track routes.

Sponge Bob

As regards Dark Underground and also Metro North.

Does anyone remember the Dublin Rapid Rail Transit Study ( DRRTS) from 1975 ???

Map incorporating that and the earlier Dublin Transportation Study from 1971 which was road and not rail centric ..but showing both.

Does it look a tad familiar 40 odd years later?? Map compiled much later.

OssianSmyth

The absurd old plans for urban motorways show how far thinking has changed on urban transport.

In the UK they've just announced a 9bn plan for rail electrification. Sadly for us, no electrified rail to Holyhead, Pembroke or Fishguard.



This follows the approval for London-Birmingham High speed by 2026 at about £17bn

Ted Mosby

Sponge Bob wrote: »

No they won't. That is a typical An Tasice and Nix myth given modern petrol prices and I won't even entertain it.

That's convinced me, after all the petrolhead and bus-lovin' chat on Commuting and Transport, it's time to GTFO boards and join AT

corktina

Ted Mosby wrote: »

That's convinced me, after all the petrolhead and bus-lovin' chat on Commuting and Transport, it's time to GTFO boards and join AT

bye bye your 47 posts were fascinating

foggy_lad

OssianSmyth wrote: »

The absurd old plans for urban motorways show how far thinking has changed on urban transport.

In the UK they've just announced a 9bn plan for rail electrification. Sadly for us, no electrified rail to Holyhead, Pembroke or Fishguard.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/61601000/gif/_61601002_rail_improvements_304.gif
This follows the approval for London-Birmingham High speed by 2026 at about £17bn

The bolded bit is what i don't understand, How is electrification of any railway in England/UK going to affect Ireland?

Is it a case of wow they are getting a new electric train set on the Mainland but nothing for us here on the islands?

dubhthach

foggy_lad wrote: »

The bolded bit is what i don't understand, How is electrification of any railway in England/UK going to affect Ireland?

Is it a case of wow they are getting a new electric train set on the Mainland but nothing for us here on the islands?

I assume Ossian likes to take the boat as oppose to cattle tru<-cough->-Ryanair.

With regards to BRT I haven't heard anything further about the project to have a BRT from St. Vincents (2-5minute walk from Dart) to the Luas at Sandyford Business park as of late. When it was initially proposed it was to partially run on the motorway reservation for the Eastern Bypass. Thus putting a scotch on that route which an earlier form of is is present in Sponge's map.

BluntGuy

Might be a little off the topic, but with regards to Luas BXD, have they ever produced documentation explaining how they'll deal with the issue of it passing over future MN/DU stops?

L1011

Judgement Day wrote: »

Still it's an ill wind and all the Turkish road building contractors must be rubbing their hands.

Name a Turkish road building contractor that got a contract in the last 7-8 years. Oh wait, there aren't any.


Public transport projects involve spending huge sums of money outside the state, purchasing vehicles or specialist knowledge we don't have.

Everything in this plan is money that will be spent *in Ireland*.

AngryLips

MYOB wrote: »

Public transport projects involve spending huge sums of money outside the state, purchasing vehicles or specialist knowledge we don't have.

Actually, the large road building programme embarked upon during the boom saw a great deal of local specialist knowledge built up over that time, any investment in transport infrastructure would ensure that this knowledge is retained and not lost overseas.

monument

From today's Sindo: Colm McCarthy: Borrowing for non-essential projects will delay recovery. On the extension southwards of the M11 motorway, he says:

Data for February 2012 were not collected. For the four months of January plus March to May, the daily average for the last five years has shown a steady pattern of decline. The averages have been 8,175 vehicles per day in 2008, 7,887 in 2009, 7,430 in 2010, 7,274 in 2011 and 6,835 in the current year. The cumulative decline is 16 per cent over these years.

A four-lane motorway of the type proposed for the Gorey to Enniscorthy section can accommodate comfortably 50,000 to 60,000 vehicles per day and the motorway sections close to the larger cities already cater for volumes at these levels. An ordinary two-lane undivided road is rarely congested at volumes below 10,000 or 12,000. The existing road south of Gorey, in other words, is not a 'bottleneck' in any normal usage of the term.

There's a place for improving roads but this kind of over spec at a time like this is madness.

MYOB wrote: »

Name a Turkish road building contractor that got a contract in the last 7-8 years. Oh wait, there aren't any.

Public transport projects involve spending huge sums of money outside the state, purchasing vehicles or specialist knowledge we don't have.

Everything in this plan is money that will be spent *in Ireland*.

How many cars are made in Ireland?

OssianSmyth

BluntGuy wrote: »

Might be a little off the topic, but with regards to Luas BXD, have they ever produced documentation explaining how they'll deal with the issue of it passing over future MN/DU stops?

This is their plan...

http://www.pleanala.ie/news/NA0004/document3.pdf

(in short: the plan is to support the Luas tracks and maintain operation while the stations are excavated beneath)

dubhthach

Type I dual carriageway has a capacity of 38,100/day according to NRA road specifications. It wouldn't have done Colm any harm to actually read that before claiming the figure is on order of 50-60,000/day. Personally I would have put the M20 ahead of the M11 (south of Gorey -- Arklow gap is essential), however it wasn't shovel ready.

Is the state purchasing Cars in this capital program? Last time I looked it wasn't, however obviously it will be purchasing large quantity of road materials sourced in Ireland such as Sand, Asphalt, Concrete, gravel etc.

Of course if I was really been biased I would have said the whole "stimulus" should have been put into Nets&Comms + Smart metering. After all it's reckoned that you could basically do FTTH (Fibre to the Home) for 90% of premises in the country for about €1.5 billion, throw in Smart Meter/Water meter and you'd definetly end up with good results down the road (1Gbit/s internet anyone?), would definitely help with the telecommuting that's for sure.

bk

How many cars are made in Ireland?

Neither are trains. Though buses are partly built up in Northern Ireland.

I agree that investing in a national fibre to the home network would have been much better for the Irish economy.

Sponge Bob

Rabbitte has no proposal for fibre and so roads got the lions share.

Sponge Bob

McCarthy is a public front for the Dept of Finance and about as 'independent ' as the Republic of Laois.

L1011

monument wrote: »

How many cars are made in Ireland?

Can you point to where in the plan the state is buying cars?

monument

dubhthach wrote: »

Of course if I was really been biased I would have said the whole "stimulus" should have been put into Nets&Comms + Smart metering. After all it's reckoned that you could basically do FTTH (Fibre to the Home) for 90% of premises in the country for about €1.5 billion, throw in Smart Meter/Water meter and you'd definetly end up with good results down the road (1Gbit/s internet anyone?), would definitely help with the telecommuting that's for sure.

That's not being "biased" it's thinking how the state should be thinking!

But if they cared about it there would have been a plan in place.

dubhthach wrote: »

however obviously it will be purchasing large quantity of road materials sourced in Ireland such as Sand, Asphalt, Concrete, gravel etc.

Same would have happened with BRT or rail.

dubhthach wrote: »

Is the state purchasing Cars in this capital program?

MYOB wrote: »

Can you point to where in the plan the state is buying cars?

Oh, come off it. Whether it's the state or end user, both public transport and private vehicles are imported.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

McCarthy is a public front for the Dept of Finance and about as 'independent ' as the Republic of Laois.

I'm by no means saying he's always right, in fact I disagree with him often -- that does not mean he cannot be right at times.

L1011

monument wrote: »

Same would have happened with BRT or rail.

With the bulk of the funding being poured outside the state on vehicles.

monument wrote: »

Oh, come off it. Whether it's the state or end user, both public transport and private vehicles are imported.

Where in the plan is there any provision for the state *or* end users to buy cars, then?

The roads in the plan are to move *existing* traffic which, amazingly, has already been bought, out of choked towns.

Judgement Day

MYOB wrote: »

Name a Turkish road building contractor that got a contract in the last 7-8 years. Oh wait, there aren't any.


Public transport projects involve spending huge sums of money outside the state, purchasing vehicles or specialist knowledge we don't have.

Everything in this plan is money that will be spent *in Ireland*.

Your 7/8 year cut-off is very convenient as it just excludes the Gama fiasco on the Ennis Bypass - you're being slightly economical with the truth.

http://www.nra.ie/News/PressReleases/2004/htmltext,2475,en.html

http://buckplanning.blogspot.ie/2008/03/controversial-firm-gama-lost-45m.html

L1011

Judgement Day wrote: »

Your 7/8 year cut-off is very convenient as it just excludes the Gama fiasco on the Ennis Bypass - you're being slightly economical with the truth.

http://www.nra.ie/News/PressReleases/2004/htmltext,2475,en.html

http://buckplanning.blogspot.ie/2008/03/controversial-firm-gama-lost-45m.html

GAMA are never going to be awarded another contract, regardless. 7-8 years covers the vast bulk of the motorway network as well as current precedent.

Care to find one in that period? Because there isn't one.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

monument wrote: »

Same would have happened with BRT or rail.

With the bulk of the funding being poured outside the state on vehicles.

Err, no. The inferstucture usually costs more and building a load of BRT routes could be independent of buses or could be just on inferstucture with use of the DB fleet until it is naturally replaced.

But, in any case, its not like a lot of money won't be spent on vehicles -- it's just a matter of the state spending it or the end user directly.

MYOB wrote: »

monument wrote: »

Oh, come off it. Whether it's the state or end user, both public transport and private vehicles are imported.

Where in the plan is there any provision for the state *or* end users to buy cars, then?

The roads in the plan are to move *existing* traffic which, amazingly, has already been bought, out of choked towns.

A project dealing with just existing demand does not sound like one which should be in a growth spending package.

L1011

monument wrote: »

Err, no. The inferstucture usually costs more and building a load of BRT routes could be independent of buses or could be just on inferstucture with use of the DB fleet until it is naturally replaced.

BRT routes generally use dedicated, higher-capacity buses.

monument wrote: »

But, in any case, its not like a lot of money won't be spent on vehicles -- it's just a matter of the state spending it or the end user directly.

What end-users do is rather irrelevant here.

monument wrote: »

A project dealing with just existing demand does not sound like one which should be in a growth spending package.

When the existing demand is preventing an area from economically functioning, managing it properly is required for growth.


A BRT system would not foster economic growth and would require importing vehicles (as much as you try and deny or spin this around) and expertise/contractors as we've no experience in doing one.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

BRT routes generally use dedicated, higher-capacity buses.

Dublin Bus are high capacity bus -- sure they could be faster loading if they kept two doors on their spec, but BRT-like pay/tag on before boarding at stops would work wonders for loading times (ie no driver interactions while on the BRT route).

MYOB wrote: »

What end-users do is rather irrelevant here.

I clearly disagree.

MYOB wrote: »

When the existing demand is preventing an area from economically functioning, managing it properly is required for growth.

Growth requires further investment in cars - even if by the end user, that's money out of Ireland. :rolleyes:

MYOB wrote: »

A BRT system would not foster economic growth and would require importing vehicles (as much as you try and deny or spin this around) and expertise/contractors as we've no experience in doing one.

Sorry but: I have to laugh at all of this!

Our planner and construction companies would be unable to design and build BRT?!!

A BRT system would not foster economic growth?! Bases on what?

L1011

monument wrote: »

Dublin Bus are high capacity bus -- sure they could be faster loading if they kept two doors on their spec, but BRT-like pay/tag on before boarding at stops would work wonders for loading times (ie no driver interactions while on the BRT route).

If you think an AV/AX class is suitable for use on BRT; I definitely don't want to travel on one you approve of.

monument wrote: »

Growth requires further investment in cars - even if by the end user, that's money out of Ireland. :rolleyes:

Its spending outside the remit of the plan. Not relevant, no matter how desperately you keep mentioning it.

monument wrote: »

Sorry but: I have to laugh at all of this!

Like everyone else here laughs at your pathetic opposition to anything that might, maybe, benefit private car owners, then.

monument wrote: »

Our planner and construction companies would be unable to design and build BRT?!!

They've never done it before and its not like they've a history of delivering new things particularly well.

monument wrote: »

A BRT system would not foster economic growth?! Bases on what?

Seeing as you are suggesting that a BRT could be built and just use the existing bus capacity there would be absolutely and utterly zero potential for growth to begin with

bk

monument wrote: »

Dublin Bus are high capacity bus -- sure they could be faster loading if they kept two doors on their spec, but BRT-like pay/tag on before boarding at stops would work wonders for loading times (ie no driver interactions while on the BRT route).

Dublin Bus current fleet are certainly not suitable for BRT.

Ideally for BRT you want single deck bendy buses with 5 to 6 doors.

Worst case scenario should be long triaxle double decks with a minimum of three doors.

Keeping dwell times low is one of the key features of BRT. DB's awful dwell times due to single door operation is totally unsuited to BRT.

Anyway this is all prettyirrelevant to the topic being discussed.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

If you think an AV/AX class is suitable for use on BRT; I definitely don't want to travel on one you approve of.

As an interim measure, I think it's not impossible. Key part of what I said: "until it is naturally replaced."

You could use the two-door replacement buses as per NTA spec or put that requirement up to three doors, depending on the routes.

MYOB wrote: »

Its spending outside the remit of the plan. Not relevant, no matter how desperately you keep mentioning it.

Spending on imports is spending on imports regardless of who spends the money. Look we'll just agree to disagree... because you saying "not relevant" over and over again isn't going to change my mind, nor is you claiming I'm "desperately" mentioning it.

MYOB wrote: »

Like everyone else here laughs at your pathetic opposition to anything that might, maybe, benefit private car owners, then.

Bull****.

There's is and was a strong need to upgrade roads. My problem is the way they have and are planning to do it, and the way road design and, in general, transport spending is massively car-focused and to feck with everything else.

MYOB wrote: »

They've never done it before and its not like they've a history of delivering new things particularly well.

They seemed to have done a good job on the motorway network -- if they can do that they can build BRT.

MYOB wrote: »

Seeing as you are suggesting that a BRT could be built and just use the existing bus capacity there would be absolutely and utterly zero potential for growth to begin with

Again, as an interim measure... But given that BRT should:

1. remove driver interaction
2. have structural, passive bus lane enforcement - which could be backed by red light cameras etc where needed
3. have strong bus priority at junctions
4. only take detours off main roads into villages etc where priority is given
5. move bus lanes to the centre of the road to remove them from conflicts (illegal and legal parking and loading, and away from turning lanes etc)
6. connect the still very disconnected bus lane network -- ie unlike our bus lanes, BRT would not stop before a junction
7. have 24 hour bus lanes with longer operational hours and possible some kind of limited night service
8. allow for dedicated bus passing room at busy stops / stops not all buses on a section stop at (ie a central section)
9. remove bus/bicycle and bus/taxi interaction
10. have easy to understand routes (an advantage BRT shares with light rail)
11. have park and ride at or outside the M50 or along the N11 etc
12. improving street layout and design as done with some BRT projects in France etc

There would be loads of potential. And sure buy a few new two or three door buses and ramp up services where needed.

bk wrote: »

Ideally for BRT you want single deck bendy buses with 5 to 6 doors.

Worst case scenario should be long triaxle double decks with a minimum of three doors.

Most BRT lines I've seen have only three doors.

Bendy buses could be problematic in a lot of central Dublin even if there was dedicated BRT all over -- I would think three-door long triaxle double decks would be ideal for BRT in Dublin. I'll be interesting to see what the NTA's report has to say but I'm guessing they might go for single decker buses.

bk wrote: »

Keeping dwell times low is one of the key features of BRT. DB's awful dwell times due to single door operation is totally unsuited to BRT..

A far greater problem is the driver interaction with cash and Leap, and you also have problems such as having bus stop too close to each other. And you have the non-dwell related problems listed above.