Cork, Limerick, Galway Motorway

marno21

Bass Reeves wrote: »

First on rail in Ireland we lack the population density outside of Dublin to support train as a method of transport. The truth is if you were going to Dublin tomorrow morning the train is only an option if you are going to the city center. If you wish to travel elsewhere in Dublin it is generally Bus or car. This is proven by the multiple Bus operators that provide 24 hour bust service to Dublin Airport from Cork, Limerick and Galway and the many people who travel to different parts of Dublin ever day by car.

Neither is this about moving infrastructure from Dublin it is about providing a piece of infrastructure to allow the development of a large part of the country. It amazing to consider that at present you have better roads between major towns compared to the roads servicing our major cities. The stupidity of the spatial strategy of the noughties where it tried to serve political interests of giving something to everyone is totally different to building a piece of infrastructure that will enhance existing population centers and existing infrastructure.

You have a crazy situtation at present where the roads from west Cork to Cork City, from Kerry to Limerick and from Mayo to Galway are better roads ( considering the traffic they carry) than the roads between these cities.

Can you expand on this please?

Bar a 4km stretch near Ballinhassig, the N71 is very poor for the level of traffic it carries. The N21 Kerry-Limerick is also not good enough for the level of traffic it carries, and runs through 3 congested towns/villages. The N17 Mayo/Galway isn't half bad but there is still a bad stretch between Tuam and Ballindine and the N60 carrying traffic from the N17 to Castlebar is also poor.

magicbastarder

elastico wrote: »

The railway survives on subsidies, intercity rail in Ireland is largely an out of date concept.

you could also argue that building motorways is 'subsidising' the car as a transport option.

end of the road

Bass Reeves wrote: »

First on rail in Ireland we lack the population density outside of Dublin to support train as a method of transport. The truth is

absolute rubbish that has no basis in reality. the rail lines from dublin are doing mostly fine and i believe passenger numbers are increasing slowly. ireland absolutely has the population density to support rail on the existing corridors from dublin.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

if you were going to Dublin tomorrow morning the train is only an option if you are going to the city center.

or to somewhere where you are going to have to change in the city centre anyway. however, the city is where most will want to go.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

If you wish to travel elsewhere in Dublin it is generally Bus or car. This is proven by the multiple Bus operators that provide 24 hour bust service to Dublin Airport from Cork, Limerick and Galway and the many people who travel to different parts of Dublin ever day by car.

and? the amount traveling to other places in dublin is likely a lot smaller then those who travel to the airport or the city centre. building a heavy rail link to the airport could attract good custom both away from the bus or to the service in the first place, if done right.

so again, your statements in relation to rail in ireland have no basis in reality.

Prototype1

The Cork-Limerick-Galway motorway should have been built ages ago. It's been obvious to everyone living in the region for years now and I have yet to hear one logical argument against it.

The argument for improving intercity rail infrastructure over creating a motorway network has been entirely debunked. The point made about the multitudes of 24hr bus services between cities proves that busses are the preferred form of transportation between cities by the Irish public. Regardless, this whole trains vs busses argument has completely omitted the fact that railways serve only trains, whereas motorways serve far more than just busses. Given the fact that almost every household has at least one car and the fact that the vast majority of our goods and products are transported by trucks. Investing in improving the motorways over the railways is a far more intelligent strategy in all regards.

This motorway proposal would be a massive improvement to country overall. It would greatly reduce the time and cost of most business conducted around the region and would be a huge economic improvement to the country as a whole. The argument that any improvement made outside of Dublin would hurt the capital and in turn the rest of the country has absolutely no basis in reality. You need only look at countries like Germany with its capital in the east but it's economic centres in the west, or England where a lot of work was put into improving the road networks outside of London eg. Birmingham and Greater Manchester area. If you tried making this argument to anyone in these countries you'd be laughed at all the home. The notion that improvements outside of the capital hurt the country is an archaic and dangerous one, by the very same logic you could argue that absolutely everywhere outside of Dublin should be decimated in order to make it more attractive to investment and this would benefit the country overall.

This motorway proposal, if done right, has the potential to turn Ireland into a real economic contender in Europe. The fact that it has yet to even be started is actually quite worrying for this countries development and future.

end of the road

Prototype1 wrote: »

The Cork-Limerick-Galway motorway should have been built ages ago. It's been obvious to everyone living in the region for years now and I have yet to hear one logical argument against it.


The argument for improving intercity rail infrastructure over creating a motorway network has been entirely debunked. The point made about the multitudes of 24hr bus services between cities proves that busses are the preferred form of transportation between cities by the Irish public. Regardless, this whole trains vs busses argument has completely omitted the fact that railways serve only trains, whereas motorways serve far more than just busses. Given the fact that almost every household has at least one car and the fact that the vast majority of our goods and products are transported by trucks. Investing in improving the motorways over the railways is a far more intelligent strategy in all regards.

This motorway proposal would be a massive improvement to country overall. It would greatly reduce the time and cost of most business conducted around the region and would be a huge economic improvement to the country as a whole. The argument that any improvement made outside of Dublin would hurt the capital and in turn the rest of the country has absolutely no basis in reality. You need only look at countries like Germany with its capital in the east but it's economic centres in the west, or England where a lot of work was put into improving the road networks outside of London eg. Birmingham and Greater Manchester area. If you tried making this argument to anyone in these countries you'd be laughed at all the home. The notion that improvements outside of the capital hurt the country is an archaic and dangerous one as by the same logic you could argue that absolutely everywhere outside of Dublin should be decimated in order to make it more attractive to investment.


This motorway proposal, if done right, has the potential to turn Ireland into a real economic contender in Europe.

The argument for improving intercity rail infrastructure over creating a motorway network has not been debunked apart from in the minds of the more roads begorra types, who would have us spending the vast majority of the countries income on roads, all over specked to motor way standards, and to every dwelling in the country.
the fact that they're are 24 hour bus routes between cities only proves they're are 24 hour bus routes between cities. bus actually isn't the prefered method of transport between cities by the irish public, it's car, as bus offers nothing of worth.
railways only serve trains, but those trains being used to their full potential along with the infrastructure, will reduce costs hugely long term in both road spending, and other environmental costs and more.
Investing in improving the motorways over the railways is not an intelligent strategy at all, investing in both is the only strategy that a grown up country would be considering. this motor way proposal won't be of benefit to the country, it will be of benefit to a small few. i've no issue with it being done, but lets not over speck the benefits which will actually be brought by it.
this motor way proposal, done right or not, won't be changing ireland into some economic contender in europe.

marno21

Rail investment should be in the east of the country, where large volumes of people need to be moved in and out of Dublin daily. The M50 and arterial routes are not suitable for mass commuting.

Road investment should be in the west where the population is sparse. The failure of the WRC & the cramming of trains in Dublin and the traffic shows that rail is needed in Dublin and an M20 is needed in the west.

Del.Monte

marno21 wrote: »

Rail investment should be in the east of the country, where large volumes of people need to be moved in and out of Dublin daily. The M50 and arterial routes are not suitable for mass commuting.

Road investment should be in the west where the population is sparse. The failure of the WRC & the cramming of trains in Dublin and the traffic shows that rail is needed in Dublin and an M20 is needed in the west.

No, just no. The country is already completely lop sided and the continued growth of Dublin to the detriment of the regions is as unsustainable as it is undesirable. Proper regional development based on some of the largest centres such as Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo, Clonmel, Athlone etc. would serve the country best. The WRC has not failed or succeeded as it has been a shambles from the start and is not an example of a properly planned regional rail link.

marno21

The jobs in Dublin won't be moved out of Dublin, and commuters in Dublin have to deal with a 19th century rail network. The PPT was opened recently but it's still 19th century setup. Traffic needs to be moved off Dublin's roads and onto trains so that people can get into work without sitting in a massive traffic jam for 4 hours a day.

Cork and Limerick being linked by rail is a white elephant. There are already several bus routes on the N20 corridor and a rail link via Limerick junction that takes roughly the same time as driving.

The Western Rail Corridor will never work, it takes roughly an hour by road and slightly longer by bus. The fact that there is one railway station in Limerick, and that it's far away from where 90% of people want to go doesn't help either.

end of the road

marno21 wrote: »

Cork and Limerick being linked by rail is a white elephant.

no it's not. it would be a huge boost if a properly built rail link was installed.

marno21 wrote: »

There are already several bus routes on the N20 corridor and a rail link via Limerick junction that takes roughly the same time as driving.

busses aren't a reason not to invest in rail as both have different markets. this has been proven decades ago.

Prototype1

Replying to end of the road here. Second ever time posting here so I'm not sure how to quote your reply but I'll address you points anyway.

The fact that there are 24hr bus services between cities demonstrates that there is a demand for such services while there is no such demand for a 24hr train service. The fact that these bus companies are all private companies, except for bus eireann, and are continuing to grow, whereas Irish rail services are heavily subsidised and still struggle to stay viable shows that there is much greater demand for bus services over train services and that they are more economically viable.

You accept that railways only serve trains but say that we need only improve our organisation of the railways to reduce spending on roads, the environment and more. Even if we maximised the potential of our railways so we have 2 way tracks along all routes with very tightly packed lines of passenger and freight trains getting the absolute maximum out of our railways. It can never match the potential of dual-lane motorways. The motorway will simply always have a higher capacity for traffic. That's not even mentioning the fact that not all motorways are restricted to just 2 lanes and the fact that individual motorist can make use of of motorways to get to places where busses don't go, something that can never be done with railways.

I'm not saying that we should completely neglect our railways. Trains were a great invention of the 19th century and opened up the world to a lot of people. However times have changed, we are living in the age of the car now. Because of this and the reason stated throughout, the development of motorways should absolutely be prioritised over the development of railways.

Just to address your environment concerns, trains are not the way forward here, no more than busses are. Trains are still completely reliant on the burning of fossil fuels whereas many motor companies are making major strides in moving away from fossil fuels eg Tesla cars.

Finally, you say that this motorway will be a benefit to a small few. This statement is simply false. Given that the combined population of the counties Cork, Limerick, Clare and Galway, the people who this motorway would serve, is over 1 million people, your definition of a small few seems slightly skewed. Improved connectivity and infrastructure for over 20% of the country should not be underestimated.

I said this motorway has great potential, you said it won't be changing Ireland into some economic contender in Europe. I wouldn't be so pessimistic.

Del.Monte

The age of the car is over but nobody has told the motor industry.

end of the road

Prototype1 wrote: »

Replying to end of the road here. Second ever time posting here so I'm not sure how to quote your reply but I'll address you points anyway.

The fact that there are 24hr bus services between cities demonstrates that there is a demand for such services while there is no such demand for a 24hr train service. The fact that these bus companies are all private companies, except for bus eireann, and are continuing to grow, whereas Irish rail services are heavily subsidised and still struggle to stay viable shows that there is much greater demand for bus services over train services and that they are more economically viable.

You accept that railways only serve trains but say that we need only improve our organisation of the railways to reduce spending on roads, the environment and more. Even if we maximised the potential of our railways so we have 2 way tracks along all routes with very tightly packed lines of passenger and freight trains getting the absolute maximum out of our railways. It can never match the potential of dual-lane motorways. The motorway will simply always have a higher capacity for traffic. That's not even mentioning the fact that not all motorways are restricted to just 2 lanes and the fact that individual motorist can make use of of motorways to get to places where busses don't go, something that can never be done with railways.

I'm not saying that we should completely neglect our railways. Trains were a great invention of the 19th century and opened up the world to a lot of people. However times have changed, we are living in the age of the car now. Because of this and the reason stated throughout, the development of motorways should absolutely be prioritised over the development of railways.

Just to address your environment concerns, trains are not the way forward here, no more than busses are. Trains are still completely reliant on the burning of fossil fuels whereas many motor companies are making major strides in moving away from fossil fuels eg Tesla cars.

Finally, you say that this motorway will be a benefit to a small few. This statement is simply false. Given that the combined population of the counties Cork, Limerick, Clare and Galway, the people who this motorway would serve, is over 1 million people, your definition of a small few seems slightly skewed. Improved connectivity and infrastructure for over 20% of the country should not be underestimated.

I said this motorway has great potential, you said it won't be changing Ireland into some economic contender in Europe. I wouldn't be so pessimistic.

that's not correct. irish rail services don't struggle to be viable, they are viable. the problem for the railway is successive governments being interested in using it as a political tool, rather then getting to grips with the issues and bringing it up to standard. couple that with irish rail's sort of politics (or whatever it is, i'm not quite sure) and it is where it is . from the best of my knowledge they're are only a few 24 hour bus routes, and even some of those services late at night are empty, but it's better to run them taking passengers rather then run empty back to their terminus to run their next scheduled service which could be full. the devolopement of motorways should not be prioritised over rail, both should be equal priority, as part of a properly functioning, integrated transport system. the age of the car just isn't sustainible and to the tax payer is hugely expensive, hence where existing, and on a couple of other corridors, bringing up the railway to full standard and encouraging use of it will be of huge benefit to all, both in terms of costs and even road capacity. trains are absolutely the way forward in terms of the environment, they're are electric trains availible. the cork galway and limerick motor way will only be of a benefit to a small few, 1000000 people won't be traveling between those cities for now at least. like i stated earlier, i have no issue with it happening, but they're are more pressing issues needing to be done first. it really won't be turning us into a contender in europe. lowering our corporate tax rate on the other hand (not a popular view but we might have to try and consider it with brexit) would be 1 way that might help that to be achieved.

Prototype1

end of the road wrote: »

that's not correct. irish rail services don't struggle to be viable, they are viable. the problem for the railway is successive governments being interested in using it as a political tool, rather then getting to grips with the issues and bringing it up to standard. couple that with irish rail's sort of politics (or whatever it is, i'm not quite sure) and it is where it is . from the best of my knowledge they're are only a few 24 hour bus routes, and even some of those services late at night are empty, but it's better to run them taking passengers rather then run empty back to their terminus to run their next scheduled service which could be full. the devolopement of motorways should not be prioritised over rail, both should be equal priority, as part of a properly functioning, integrated transport system. the age of the car just isn't sustainible and to the tax payer is hugely expensive, hence where existing, and on a couple of other corridors, bringing up the railway to full standard and encouraging use of it will be of huge benefit to all, both in terms of costs and even road capacity. trains are absolutely the way forward in terms of the environment, they're are electric trains availible. the cork galway and limerick motor way will only be of a benefit to a small few, 1000000 people won't be traveling between those cities for now at least. like i stated earlier, i have no issue with it happening, but they're are more pressing issues needing to be done first. it really won't be turning us into a contender in europe. lowering our corporate tax rate on the other hand (not a popular view but we might have to try and consider it with brexit) would be 1 way that might help that to be achieved.

Your username is starting to make a lot more sense now. I actually feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. You haven't countered a single one of my points. Points that completely dismantle your argument. Instead you've just decided to repeat your already debunked views on the matter.

Let me try to clear this up for you. Irish Rail is heavily subsidised. That means that all Irish taxpayers, regardless of whether or not they even use trains, are paying to support this company. Even with the support of our money Irish Rail still operated at a loss of €21 million back in 2012. If this company was no longer the burden of the Irish people and forced to be a self sufficient enterprise like the bus companies we've mentioned, it would immediately collapse. In other words it would not be viable. You try to argue that roads and cars are too much of a burden on tax payers but, for the most part, people pay a proportionate amount of tax to the use they get out of the roads. On the other hand if someone never once uses a train in their life, they are still forced to pay for the upkeep of Irish Rail through their taxes.

Most of the rest of your reply is you just repeating you already thoroughly disproved view points. The one new point you make is the fact that electric trains are available as a more environmentally friendly option. I'm sure you aware of the monumental cost involved in transforming our railways into electric railways. Which would be one of the most foolish wastes of money imaginable given the fact that switching to electric motor vehicles does not require a complete overhaul of the road network as it does with trains and given the fact that the public has shown an overwhelmingly greater interest in bus transport over train transport.

You finish up by going way off topic and suggesting that we lower our corporate income tax even further. Given that we already have the joint lowest rate in Europe and Britain have shown no real interest in adjusting their corporate income tax rate to compete with our's, this would be a completely unnecessary move and quite frankly has little to no relevance to the discussion here.

end of the road

Prototype1 wrote: »

Your username is starting to make a lot more sense now. I actually feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. You haven't countered a single one of my points. Points that completely dismantle your argument. Instead you've just decided to repeat your already debunked views on the matter.

Let me try to clear this up for you. Irish Rail is heavily subsidised. That means that all Irish taxpayers, regardless of whether or not they even use trains, are paying to support this company. Even with the support of our money Irish Rail still operated at a loss of €21 million back in 2012. If this company was no longer the burden of the Irish people and forced to be a self sufficient enterprise like the bus companies we've mentioned, it would immediately collapse. In other words it would not be viable. You try to argue that roads and cars are too much of a burden on tax payers but, for the most part, people pay a proportionate amount of tax to the use they get out of the roads. On the other hand if someone never once uses a train in their life, they are still forced to pay for the upkeep of Irish Rail through their taxes.

Most of the rest of your reply is you just repeating you already thoroughly disproved view points. The one new point you make is the fact that electric trains are available as a more environmentally friendly option. I'm sure you aware of the monumental cost involved in transforming our railways into electric railways. Which would be one of the most foolish wastes of money imaginable given the fact that switching to electric motor vehicles does not require a complete overhaul of the road network as it does with trains and given the fact that the public has shown an overwhelmingly greater interest in bus transport over train transport.

You finish up by going way off topic and suggesting that we lower our corporate income tax even further. Given that we already have the joint lowest rate in Europe and Britain have shown no real interest in adjusting their corporate income tax rate to compete with our's, this would be a completely unnecessary move and quite frankly has little to no relevance to the discussion here.

oh i have countered your points. you may not like what was said but that's for you to deal with. your points haven't dismantled my argument. my views haven't been debunked, but been accepted by most of the developed world. Let me try to clear this up for you. all transport receives some sort of subsidy. whether it be a direct subsidy as in the case of the CIE companies, or a hidden subsidy in terms of the privates via road infrastructure. i don't have an issue with either, however we must be honest of the realities. the vast majority of railways around the world either operate at a loss in full, or in part. however most countries (grown up ones anyway) accept this as the railway offers a service to people who otherwise would not use public transport, meaning in turn less road congestion and more. my whole reply is repeating the accepted viewpoint of the vast majority of the developed world. while electrifying the network would be expensive upfront, it would be of huge benefit going forward into the future, and be one of many ways to make our railways future proof and fit for generations to come. doing it would be money well spent. the public has not shown an overwhelmingly greater interest in bus transport over rail, but car transport. bus transport is still a rather small form of transport in the great scheme of things, and the reason it has a bit more usership then rail is down to the fact our rail network is underfunded and invested in, and the company running it is badly managed. in saying that, the rail network is very well used, and they're is room for growth. no doubt it will come in time.

Bass Reeves

Of all the developed EU countries Ireland has the lowest density.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

Because of this railways lack flexibility. When you have a situation that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th city's are not connected by motorway it would seem that we have an infrastructural deficit. I do not think that any other country in Europe is such a situation.

If you want to spread economic development then you have to have infrastructure. You have to prioitize you spend. The reality is that in a low population density country motorways between city's are more important than railway

Prototype1

end of the road wrote: »

oh i have countered your points. you may not like what was said but that's for you to deal with. your points haven't dismantled my argument. my views haven't been debunked, but been accepted by most of the developed world. Let me try to clear this up for you. all transport receives some sort of subsidy. whether it be a direct subsidy as in the case of the CIE companies, or a hidden subsidy in terms of the privates via road infrastructure. i don't have an issue with either, however we must be honest of the realities. the vast majority of railways around the world either operate at a loss in full, or in part. however most countries (grown up ones anyway) accept this as the railway offers a service to people who otherwise would not use public transport, meaning in turn less road congestion and more. my whole reply is repeating the accepted viewpoint of the vast majority of the developed world. while electrifying the network would be expensive upfront, it would be of huge benefit going forward into the future, and be one of many ways to make our railways future proof and fit for generations to come. doing it would be money well spent. the public has not shown an overwhelmingly greater interest in bus transport over rail, but car transport. bus transport is still a rather small form of transport in the great scheme of things, and the reason it has a bit more usership then rail is down to the fact our rail network is underfunded and invested in, and the company running it is badly managed. in saying that, the rail network is very well used, and they're is room for growth. no doubt it will come in time.

That's it you have to be a troll. You have yet to effectively counter anyone of my points but are somehow satisfied that I have been corrected here. All that's happening here is you're consistently missing my point and then go off on some kind of tangent.

You claim that all transport companies are subsidised (not true) and you back this up by saying the fact that roads are built, counts as a subsidy for bus companies. Subsidies are what is given to a company in order to keep it afloat. Irish Rail could not exist without these subsidies, bus companies are fine without them. The point is bus companies are economically viable, train companies are not.

Your next point is that Governments accept this loss because trains provide a public service. The truth is that trains do not provide any essential service that is not offered by busses. Meaning the losses are just that, wasted money.

I don't disagree with making our railways electric but not until the more economically viable, farther reaching and more accessible motorway system has been properly developed.

You do accept that bus transport is generally preferred by the public over train transport but then go on to state that the reason for this is because the rail network is underfunded. This makes me question whether or not you're actually reading my replies to you at all. I've already clearly explained how Irish Rail is directly funded by the Irish tax payers. Even with this public funding they still cannot compete with the bus companies, who do not get public funding, and your suggestion to make them competitive is to increase their funding even more, making Irish Rail even more of a burden on the Irish people than it already is. Just out of curiosity, how will you be increasing this funding? Will it be at the expense of public services elsewhere or by increasing taxes on the people?

marno21

There is a backlog of about 7bn euro of rail needs needed in Dublin. ALL rail funding needs to be diverted towards bridging this gap before any western rail corridors or lines to provincial towns or subventing existing lines.

end of the road

Prototype1 wrote: »

That's it you have to be a troll. You have yet to effectively counter anyone of my points but are somehow satisfied that I have been corrected here. All that's happening here is you're consistently missing my point and then go off on some kind of tangent.

You claim that all transport companies are subsidised (not true) and you back this up by saying the fact that roads are built, counts as a subsidy for bus companies. Subsidies are what is given to a company in order to keep it afloat. Irish Rail could not exist without these subsidies, bus companies are fine without them. The point is bus companies are economically viable, train companies are not.

Your next point is that Governments accept this loss because trains provide a public service. The truth is that trains do not provide any essential service that is not offered by busses. Meaning the losses are just that, wasted money.

I don't disagree with making our railways electric but not until the more economically viable, farther reaching and more accessible motorway system has been properly developed.

You do accept that bus transport is generally preferred by the public over train transport but then go on to state that the reason for this is because the rail network is underfunded. This makes me question whether or not you're actually reading my replies to you at all. I've already clearly explained how Irish Rail is directly funded by the Irish tax payers. Even with this public funding they still cannot compete with the bus companies, who do not get public funding, and your suggestion to make them competitive is to increase their funding even more, making Irish Rail even more of a burden on the Irish people than it already is. Just out of curiosity, how will you be increasing this funding? Will it be at the expense of public services elsewhere or by increasing taxes on the people?

i have countered them, you simply don't like the information been given. that's fine, but you will quickly learn that calling people a troll because you don't agree with them does not work on here. i'm not missing your point, it's simply that your point is a mix of being not quite as correct as you think, and been debunked decades ago. if transport companies are availing of infrastructure which is implemented at my expence and your expence, that is a form of a hidden subsidy. as i have said, i don't have an issue with that but to try and deny it is burying your head in the sand. subsidies are many things and come in many forms. in fact, we are all subsidised to some extent, whether it be direct or hidden depending on our circumstances. trains do provide an essential service, those of us who use them would not be using public transport if they didn't exist. so the money in having them existing is money well spent. busses offer nothing of value to me and those of us using rail, and the vast majority of people who use car. they do offer something of value for others and that is why i have no issue with them existing to provide those who wish to use them said service. the debatibly more economically viable motor way system which cost billions to develop and dispite bringing in a good amount of money, doesn't seem to cover their full costs (which i don't have an issue with) will be "properly developed" (as in developed further) when the traffic to justify doing so exists. bus transport is only slightly "preferred" by the public over train transport (as in used out of necessity rather then being preferred)

a proper rail network brought up to it's full speed would levave the busses for dust. the alinements for the most part would be able to be brought up to higher speeds then currently. the railway is not a burdin on the tax payer, it's a public service, a form of infrastructure, which is vital to a properly functioning country, which claims to want to be a european power.

end of the road

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Of all the developed EU countries Ireland has the lowest density.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

Because of this railways lack flexibility. When you have a situation that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th city's are not connected by motorway it would seem that we have an infrastructural deficit. I do not think that any other country in Europe is such a situation.

If you want to spread economic development then you have to have infrastructure. You have to prioitize you spend. The reality is that in a low population density country motorways between city's are more important than railway

railways will be inflexible to some degree regardless of the density. that's just their nature. if you want to build infrastructure, then between the cities both road and rail are the only acceptible offering.

marno21 wrote: »

There is a backlog of about 7bn euro of rail needs needed in Dublin. ALL rail funding needs to be diverted towards bridging this gap before any western rail corridors or lines to provincial towns or subventing existing lines.

the western rail corridor is irrelevant as it won't be reopening. subventing the network must continue, it should not be lost just so dublin will still not get any improvements to it's rail network. other people should not be losing their services for dublin or any other part of the country. that's not how a grown up country works.

Isambard

why are we talking about railways?
the M20 motorway would make a huge difference to the people who use that corridor to get to Limerick or Cork. That's what it is about really, end to end traffic is not the main purpose, although that will be important also.

Add to that the lives that will not be lost and it's a no brainer.

I heard last week that the planning process has restarted and one million has been allocated to this. It's a start, I doubt I'll get to use it though :-(

monument

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Of all the developed EU countries Ireland has the lowest density.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

Because of this railways lack flexibility. When you have a situation that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th city's are not connected by motorway it would seem that we have an infrastructural deficit. I do not think that any other country in Europe is such a situation.

If you want to spread economic development then you have to have infrastructure. You have to prioitize you spend. The reality is that in a low population density country motorways between city's are more important than railway

That is completely nonsense -- Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland are all below Ireland... choosing EU countries only makes no sense when point to a list of developed countries.

Bass Reeves

monument wrote: »

That is completely nonsense -- Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland are all below Ireland... choosing EU countries only makes no sense when point to a list of developed countries.

Maybe so we should choose the USA. First off Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland are all Artic countries with large area's either unpopulated or with very low population densities. The majority of there population live in certain highly populated area's. There is no point in taking Iceland as an example. Ireland always had a population spread over the whole country.

It was interesting You pick these countries as all have very comprehensive road networks. Norway bores through mountains to accomodate road traffic and has some of the longest tunnels in the world

monument

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Maybe so we should choose the USA. First off Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland are all Artic countries with large area's either unpopulated or with very low population densities. The majority of there population live in certain highly populated area's. There is no point in taking Iceland as an example. Ireland always had a population spread over the whole country.

It was interesting You pick these countries as all have very comprehensive road networks. Norway bores through mountains to accomodate road traffic and has some of the longest tunnels in the world

I picked those countries because they are all examples which all disprove the main claim in your last post.

National population density is irreverent to both intercity rail and motorway networks in most countries.*

I'm not making a pro-rail or anti-car argument, I'm correcting your claim which has no bases in the how things actually work.

* The Netherlands is sometimes used as an example of what national population density you need for a rail network, but the Netherlands doesn't simply have a national rail network, they have a regional rail network spread across the county with high frequency plus intercity services. There's loads of countries with different mixes.

Bass Reeves

monument wrote: »

I picked those countries because they are all examples which all disprove the main claim in your last post.

National population density is irreverent to both intercity rail and motorway networks in most countries.*

I'm not making a pro-rail or anti-car argument, I'm correcting your claim which has no bases in the how things actually work.

* The Netherlands is sometimes used as an example of what national population density you need for a rail network, but the Netherlands doesn't simply have a national rail network, they have a regional rail network spread across the county with high frequency plus intercity services. There's loads of countries with different mixes.

No you just picked a spurious case. Like another few here you do not debate the question rather you try to counter the case you are against by dealing with one or two facts. There are a few here that seem unable to debate the question. population density has everything to do with cohesive large capacity transport systems. With out population density's you are unable to provide frequent and compeditive services.

We have one what would be classes as a city in an European or world wide context. Nobody is saying that we do not need a comprehensive high density transport system in Dublin. What we are saying is that Cork. Limerick Galway motorway is a priority as well and it is not being given the priority that it deserves. I have seen figure that the Cork Limerick axis will cost about 800 million which in the scheme of national infrastructure spend is not huge. When you consider that the Limerick Galway part is 60% complete and a lot of the preparity work is done on the remainder a billion would nearly complete the whole project.

monument

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No you just picked a spurious case. Like another few here you do not debate the question rather you try to counter the case you are against by dealing with one or two facts. There are a few here that seem unable to debate the question. population density has everything to do with cohesive large capacity transport systems. With out population density's you are unable to provide frequent and compeditive services.

We have one what would be classes as a city in an European or world wide context. Nobody is saying that we do not need a comprehensive high density transport system in Dublin. What we are saying is that Cork. Limerick Galway motorway is a priority as well and it is not being given the priority that it deserves. I have seen figure that the Cork Limerick axis will cost about 800 million which in the scheme of national infrastructure spend is not huge. When you consider that the Limerick Galway part is 60% complete and a lot of the preparity work is done on the remainder a billion would nearly complete the whole project.

HOW CLEAR CAN I SAY THIS?

I'm not making a pro-rail or anti-car argument. I am just correcting your claim. I am not making points against or for a motorway as a priority.

But I am correcting your claims which are baseless and misleading. National population density has nothing to do with viability of intercity rail between cities.

As an aside: The size of Cork, Limerick, and Galway now is next to irrelevant in the context of planning a transport system for growing these cities as some kind of linked counterbalance to Dublin.

Bass Reeves

monument wrote: »

HOW CLEAR CAN I SAY THIS?

I'm not making a pro-rail or anti-car argument. I am just correcting your claim. I am not making points against or for a motorway as a priority.

But I am correcting your claims which are baseless and misleading. National population density has nothing to do with viability of intercity rail between cities.

As an aside: The size of Cork, Limerick, and Galway now is next to irrelevant in the context of planning a transport system for growing these cities as some kind of linked counterbalance to Dublin.

No you are not you made a point that Finland Sweden and Norway have lower populuation densities and Iceland (but just about every where had a higher population density than Iceland). As I pointed out these countries are heavily populated in certain area's and have large area's (because they are artic countries) that are virtually unpopulated).

The population of Cork, Limerick and Galway are relevant as is the way population is dispersed around them. What is also relevant is that the construction of a motorway between them is the most important infrastructure project for them at present

_Kaiser_

This notion of "counter-balancing" Dublin or suggesting that places like Athlone could be a major economic force if only we put in the investment is just fantasy and GAA-style tribal nonsense

We're a small island of about 4.5 million people with a low population density and an economy that is almost entirely dependent on FDI. The country isn't big enough to support another Dublin and the companies/jobs currently there aren't just going to relocate to the midlands "just because..." We're lucky Dublin does as well as it does really and should be focusing efforts on how to improve conditions for both the residents/workers and the companies we depend on. It's this lack of focus and the aforementioned tribal nonsense that has the city gridlocked every day and more and more people forced into the surrounding counties for accommodation.

Rather than accept the reality that Dublin is the best hope for this country's prosperity and is already subsidising the rest of the country as it is, we have politicians and their electorates demanding that they too should get everything the "feckin Dubs" get, regardless of how impractical or expensive their demands are.

The priority has to be solving (or at least improving) Dublin's transport issues - and I'm not talking about the current nonsense of trying to get everyone on bikes. If there's no will to build up or re-purpose the lots of land still within/just outside the M50 for residential use, then we need to focus on the best and fastest ways to get people in and out of (and AROUND!!! It's not enough to just dump everyone in An Lar!) the city. Leaving aside the massive shortage of housing for a minute, it's the lack of this that will cost us future investment from (for example) currently UK-based companies looking at their options in a post-Brexit environment

And no, they won't want to move to Athlone or the likes either!

monument

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No you are not you made a point that Finland Sweden and Norway have lower populuation densities and Iceland (but just about every where had a higher population density than Iceland).

Your original point which I replied to was:

"Of all the developed EU countries Ireland has the lowest density."

It's fine if you want to keep avoiding backing away from that, but it's untrue.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

As I pointed out these countries are heavily populated in certain area's and have large area's (because they are artic countries) that are virtually unpopulated).

It does not matter what's in the rest of the country be it bog land or dispersed populations or forests or fields or mountains, what matter for intercity transport modes is the sizes of the cities and, more so, that size you want to grow them to.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The population of Cork, Limerick and Galway are relevant as is the way population is dispersed around them. What is also relevant is that the construction of a motorway between them is the most important infrastructure project for them at present

So you're advocating growing on that dispersed population or promoting density? A motorway link between Limerick and Cork using a motorway link between Limerick and the M8, maybe at around Mitchelstown, makes some sense. However, in the context of growing and promoting population density and climate change, a full upgrade of the M20 would be bonkers. Cork and Galway are too clogged already for more cars to be the answer.

As for rail, the three cities: Cork at ~200,000, Limerick at ~100,000, and Galway at ~80,000 with only ~100km between each of them and hub towns directly between them, I'm not sure what's so nonviable about rail, if anybody was serious about planning a counterbalance to Dublin and really growing the three cities.

Cork's density isn't bad for a city of its size and all three have loads of potential for high-density infill and high-density growth on the edges.

(High-density in this context is high-density of cities like Dublin and Amsterdam, not New York or Paris)

marno21

I have discussed in detail why the M20 should not be routed via Mitchelstown here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057600214

Isambard

the M20 going via the M8 and Mitchelstown is of no use to North Cork towns already an hour from the Motorway network. The N20 as it stands is largely route into Cork or Limerick for it's hinterland and end to end traffic is, whilst important, secondary.

A rail link is already in place and should be developed as well rather than instead of the M20. For instance, the Cork to Mallow local trains could quite cheaply be extended to Limerick, incorporating the shuttle , with a couple of extra stops added (such as Buttevant). There's only one train an hour each way, so there is plenty of track capacity.