2018-2027 National Development Plan

riddlinrussell

Baldilocks wrote: »

Regarding Eamonn Ryan not mentioning abolishing the roads program - 1 Swallow doesn't make a summer.....

When the green party grow up and accept that life involves making difficult choices, I'll take them seriously (this is coming from someone who is growing some fruit and veg in the garden, is composting the food waste, etc.)

Will the greens get onboard with Bus-Connects?
Will they stop blindly fighting against incinerators (they are far better than landfill, and light years more environmentally responsible than putting the waste on a boat to .... anywhere but here)
I'm all for more renewable energy (eg: wind), but what will be done with the excess capacity (last year we were at times, off-peak and a bit of wind about, able to meet our needs by wind alone), but will the green party get onboard with the creation of several more Turlough hills??

I think aside of any will of the greens you'd be hard pressed to pass more Turlough hills, not sure if they would pass EU environmental directives as is, hilltops are regularly fairly rich in wildlife.

Couple that with the "Destroying my backyard, put it somewhere else" crowd and you've got an absolute storm of opposition to them unfortunately, big battery storage facilities I think are going to be the only politically possible things going forward (Fully aware of the ecological issues with them too...)

Kevtherev1

marno21 wrote: »

Eamon Ryan was on Newstalk today talking about making Ireland a world leader in offshore wind energy generation. It was refreshing to hear him being practical on air. No mention of cancelling road projects or diverting the N20 through Tipperary

Time to temporarily retire the word "crackpots".

I believe the term nutters was how leo varadkar described eamonn ryan and his ilk during the first election campaign debate. How appropriate sounds about right.

marno21

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/greens-plan-to-shift-billions-to-public-transport-hit-by-roads-budget-1.4250798

marno21

marno21 wrote: »

That's more the NTA's role than TII. TII are more to do with the national road network and designing/planning light rail. The national road network should not be concerned with active transport/sustainable transport as a whole

And thats how we end up with €500 million being spent on a ring road for a city that can be cycled, end-to-end, in 35 mins

marno21

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And thats how we end up with €500 million being spent on a ring road for a city that can be cycled, end-to-end, in 35 mins

TII have concluded that there is a need for such a ring road and the Government have green lit the scheme.

It’s up to the NTA and Galway Council to sort the cycling infrastructure, which I fully support and could be done for little cost and would deliver large benefits. But it doesn’t address the need for the M6 scheme to take non citybound traffic away from the city.

Aontachtoir

Varadkar has come out and said that he does not believe major transport projects will have to be cancelled as a result of Covid. This was in response to the National Bus and Rail Union's call yesterday to cancel both the Dublin Metro and Dublin Bus Connects.

Early days yet of course, but promising noises. Maybe we'll still get our M20 (among others).

roadmaster

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Varadkar has come out and said that he does not believe major transport projects will have to be cancelled as a result of Covid. This was in response to the National Bus and Rail Union's call yesterday to cancel both the Dublin Metro and Dublin Bus Connects.

Early days yet of course, but promising noises. Maybe we'll still get our M20 (among others).

I presume that the NBRU are against the metro due to fact it may be automated ?

riddlinrussell

Deleted User wrote: »

And thats how we end up with €500 million being spent on a ring road for a city that can be cycled, end-to-end, in 35 mins

Agreed, I think a big problem is that for the most part it seems like TII schemes take a look at the AADT and say

"How can we make the capacity better to handle this number and its projected increase"

when they should be thinking

"Where is this AADT coming from, and going to, are there ways we can reduce the AADT so this road doesn't need to be changed?"

At that point they should be looking at cycling/walking permeability, public transport provision etc.

(obviously with long distance routes this is somewhat different, look at how much of that traffic 'could' and 'would' take the train instead to determine which would work better)

Basically the calculations done by TII are looking at things the wrong way, the only thing that should trump this rethink of how projects are prioritised and designed should be safety concerns (e.g. M20, unsafe bends etc)

tonc76

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Agreed, I think a big problem is that for the most part it seems like TII schemes take a look at the AADT and say

"How can we make the capacity better to handle this number and its projected increase"

when they should be thinking

"Where is this AADT coming from, and going to, are there ways we can reduce the AADT so this road doesn't need to be changed?"

At that point they should be looking at cycling/walking permeability, public transport provision etc.

(obviously with long distance routes this is somewhat different, look at how much of that traffic 'could' and 'would' take the train instead to determine which would work better)

Basically the calculations done by TII are looking at things the wrong way, the only thing that should trump this rethink of how projects are prioritised and designed should be safety concerns (e.g. M20, unsafe bends etc)

Origin and destination surveys are undertaken to determine where trips are beginning and ending in the early planning phases of schemes. AADT is a factor as is safety, environmental impact, buildability, cost, etc. As far as I understand the majority of vehicle trips in Galway are west to east and vice versa all of which have to travel through the city at the moment which creates chaos. Galway may be cyclable in 35 minutes but the infrastructure to do so safely isn't there. When/if the bypass is constructed this will free up space on the city's roads and streets which will create a safer environment for cyclists and pedestrains as well as facilitating an improvement is public transport provision and reliability.

riddlinrussell

tonc76 wrote: »

Origin and destination surveys are undertaken to determine where trips are beginning and ending in the early planning phases of schemes. AADT is a factor as is safety, environmental impact, buildability, cost, etc. As far as I understand the majority of vehicle trips in Galway are west to east and vice versa all of which have to travel through the city at the moment which creates chaos. Galway may be cyclable in 35 minutes but the infrastructure to do so safely isn't there. When/if the bypass is constructed this will free up space on the city's roads and streets which will create a safer environment for cyclists and pedestrains as well as facilitating an improvement is public transport provision and reliability.

My argument is that the 'We need to build the bypass so we can then have safe cycling and improved PT' idea is totally backwards. The current distributor is taking all cross city traffic and all traffic getting into/between two places the city.

Build the safe cycling infra and PT provision, then check your AADT again and see if you still need to build a bypass, if you do, fine, build it.

The cost to build a motorway ring road around Galway is probably an order of magnitude greater than the cost to put in a very good central cycling network and a few corridors linking suburbs to town. For half the cost of it you could probably modify many roads for Public Transport priority in addition to the Cycling works.

The absolute worst case scenario for doing so would be traffic getting worse, and if that happened then the ring road could still be built.

This isn't supposed to be Galway Bypass specific by the way (I'm not well versed on the specific issues there). The answer to any AADT increase has typically been "We need a bigger pipe along here because thats where the flow is" rather than "Can we reduce the flow by changing mode from car to bus/bike and then see if we still need a bigger pipe"

Aontachtoir

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Build the safe cycling infra and PT provision, then check your AADT again and see if you still need to build a bypass, if you do, fine, build it.

That would take the bones of a decade. Galway has been choking on traffic for long enough.

Furthermore, you're not actually proposing reducing the flow in the early stages. By taking away roads from cars and giving them over to construction of bus lanes, cycle lanes, and possibly trams, you're just narrowing the pipe. How many years did it take to build the Luas? In that time, Galway will choke even more on traffic, when we need things to flow as smoothly as possible, and will in all likelihood continue to do so if traffic in transit continues to need to pass through the city even after the PT is established.

There is no indication that flow reduction alone will deliver sustainable relief. We need a bigger pipe.

riddlinrussell

Aontachtoir wrote: »

That would take the bones of a decade. Galway has been choking on traffic for long enough.

Furthermore, you're not actually proposing reducing the flow in the early stages. By taking away roads from cars and giving them over to construction of bus lanes, cycle lanes, and possibly trams, you're just narrowing the pipe. How many years did it take to build the Luas? In that time, Galway will choke even more on traffic, when we need things to flow as smoothly as possible, and will in all likelihood continue to do so if traffic in transit continues to need to pass through the city even after the PT is established.

There is no indication that flow reduction alone will deliver sustainable relief. We need a bigger pipe.

Again I'm not here to argue the merits/demerits of the Galway Bypass Specifically (I believe there is a thread for that).

I see no reason why cycle lanes need to take a decade, its a council level decision, on council managed roads, just this week Dublin has fired out so many cycle protection schemes it has run out of bollards, these things don't need to spend years in planning hell, if there was a will Galway could have dedicated bus lanes and cycle lanes, close off some streets to cars and discourage car travel into the town.

Again there's not reason this couldn't all be done in the interim while planning is going on for the bypass.

If you really think the bypass will be done in the 10 years you think it would take to transform Galway into a more person friendly city you havent seen a lot of the big projects in the pipeline in Ireland...

Aontachtoir

Aontachtoir wrote: »

That would take the bones of a decade.

What are you planning on building them with for them to take a decade to implement?

As has been shown recently by DCC, it takes only a matter of a few days to put in good cycling infrastructure.

A comprehensive and safe cycling network could be fully implemented all across Galway city and its environs within a few short months if the will was there

Aontachtoir

Deleted User wrote: »

What are you planning on building them with for them to take a decade to implement?

If we're serious about putting in a good PT infrastructure and then reassessing the need for the bypass, that would include a version of Bus Connects and that light rail system that certain parties have been calling for. That's several years of design and construction, so, starting now, that would probably take us to 2026-7ish, based on the Luas construction timeframe.

Following that, we begin planning for the bypass which it turns out we still need from scratch, because the traffic data, environmental surveys etc will all be a decade out of date. We've all seen how many years were lost by dropping the M20, and how every single box has to be ticked all over again. Moving through TII stages 1-4 would take probably 2ish years, then another 3-4 years with ABP and the inevitable appeals (the similarly controversial M28 was submitted for approval 3 years ago on Sunday, and there is still no end in sight), followed by 2-3 years to build, so give it 7 years minimum. That means a Galway bypass in 2033, if all goes well, if we wait for the complete public transport infrastructure first.

Or we could just go ahead and build it now, and not wait on the public transport infrastructure.

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I see no reason why cycle lanes need to take a decade, its a council level decision, on council managed roads, just this week Dublin has fired out so many cycle protection schemes it has run out of bollards, these things don't need to spend years in planning hell, if there was a will Galway could have dedicated bus lanes and cycle lanes, close off some streets to cars and discourage car travel into the town. Again there's not reason this couldn't all be done in the interim while planning is going on for the bypass.

The reason things spend years in planning is to make sure they don't mess things up. I have little confidence that many of these cycle/bus lanes etc will stay as they are. The NDP has been in development for years, in response to trends that have been established for decades. Covid will lead to a temporary change in travel patterns, part of which will be increased use of private cars to avoid public transport. We should be preparing for more traffic, not less.

Leonard Hofstadter

Looks like FF and FG have sold their souls, Greens got their 2:1 demand on roads vs public transport, plus €360 million a year on a walking and cycling programme:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/leaders-set-to-sign-off-on-government-deal-as-agreement-reached-on-transport-and-7-target-1.4278782?mode=amp

Goodbye to FG and FF everywhere outside the Pale :mad:!

Kevtherev1

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

Looks like FF and FG have sold their souls, Greens got their 2:1 demand on roads vs public transport, plus €360 million a year on a walking and cycling programme:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/leaders-set-to-sign-off-on-government-deal-as-agreement-reached-on-transport-and-7-target-1.4278782?mode=amp

Goodbye to FG and FF everywhere outside the Pale :mad:!

Eamonn Ryan looked such a fool today coming in on the bike on the news. Charlie Chaplin esq. Back to topic.

A 2.1 split to public transport to roads over next five years. There will be practically no public transport projects that will be shovel ready by 2026. Except for metrolink. What public transport are they going to spend all this extra money on. Metro and bus Connects where already confirmed to proceed. What other public transport (some cork projects maybe)

With the greens in power it would seem they will block key roads projects from going to contract stage. And this fool topped the poll in south Dublin. He too nice and hence Catherine Martin now doing a hostile takeover of the green leadership.

spacetweek

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

Goodbye to FG and FF everywhere outside the Pale :mad:!

Bit much?


I do agree that the 360/year figure is mind boggling. You could build a nationwide network of cycling routes in a single year with that funding level!

spacetweek

spacetweek wrote: »

Bit much?


I do agree that the 360/year figure is mind boggling. You could build a nationwide network of cycling routes in a single year with that funding level!

I know, I'm honestly so excited by this

But I think a large portion of this will get swallowed by CPO money to free up land to provide for cycling infrastructure but even still. 1.8 billion over the life of the next govt dedicated to cycling, frikkin wow

marno21

The good thing here is that the Green Party ideas here are so vague and impractical that there are workarounds.

This whole "roads" vs "public transport" lark is bonkers. Buses are public transport and they run on roads. The M4 is being widened between Maynooth and Leixlip, however there will also be a bus lane provided. Is this a roads or public transport in the 2:1 split.

The Green Party have a chance to put climate action front and centre in the next Government and instead they are pushing the same one dimensional simplifications that aren't going to get us far.

riddlinrussell

marno21 wrote: »

The good thing here is that the Green Party ideas here are so vague and impractical that there are workarounds.

This whole "roads" vs "public transport" lark is bonkers. Buses are public transport and they run on roads. The M4 is being widened between Maynooth and Leixlip, however there will also be a bus lane provided. Is this a roads or public transport in the 2:1 split.

The Green Party have a chance to put climate action front and centre in the next Government and instead they are pushing the same one dimensional simplifications that aren't going to get us far.

If the budget prioritisation towards public transport meant that they try to sidestep it by putting (enforced) bus lanes on all 3 lane motorways etc then that's not exactly something to complain about.

I'd hope that the idea the money could be there to think bigger will encourage things like rail improvements etc.

Leonard Hofstadter

Doing Bus Connects and MetroLink are actually good ideas, but they were things Fine Gael was committed to doing anyway. We don't need the Greens in power for that.

In Dublin the Greens were an absolute disaster on the Luas, they were front and centre objecting to upgrading the Luas Green Line despite the fact it is completely over capacity and is capable of Metro operation. That actually was one of the best things that could have happened to the capital, it was a disgrace that that was abandoned.

riddlinrussell

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

Doing Bus Connects and MetroLink are actually good ideas, but they were things Fine Gael was committed to doing anyway. We don't need the Greens in power for that.

In Dublin the Greens were an absolute disaster on the Luas, they were front and centre objecting to upgrading the Luas Green Line despite the fact it is completely over capacity and is capable of Metro operation. That actually was one of the best things that could have happened to the capital, it was a disgrace that that was abandoned.

I will say the green party was not opposed as a whole, local TDs were, which unfortunately was the party leader, I would note that Eamonn Ryan's opposition to it did not kill the southern route, the sewer under the canal and subsequent "unacceptable" timescales killed it.

I for one hope it returns soon, if the greens want to back a metro horse for the southwest then they need to have some ambition and push for it to be metro 2

From the irish times

"There will also be a significant expansion of offshore wind energy across the west coast, which Green Party figures say will massively benefit communities in the west of Ireland."

How exactly is turbines out at sea going to massively benefit communities in the west of Ireland ?

Decent road infrastructure would massively benefit communities in the west of Ireland, the greens are totally opposed to that and even tried to stop the Castlebar - westport road that had already started.

They are massively damaged outside Dublin already and this government hasn't even been formed yet.

Pete_Cavan

spacetweek wrote: »

Bit much?


I do agree that the 360/year figure is mind boggling. You could build a nationwide network of cycling routes in a single year with that funding level!

They won't be able to spend anything like that each year. The pipeline of projects doesn't exist for a start. When you see what you get for €40m, they will quickly run out of projects. You can't get through design/planning quick enough to continuously spend like that, bearing in mind that the low hang fruit will be gone and the remaining projects are more difficult and contentious. In theory you could spend €100m on an amazing greenway from Athlone to Galway to connect Dublin and Galway but it will take a long time to get an agreed route, design it, deal with all the planning challenges, etc.

They will have to include portions of BusConnects costs, the tourist National Secondaries upgrades with cycling routes, any CoCo resurfacing project where they put in 100m of cycle lane, etc. then it is just becomes an accounting exercise. The money is already coming from the Transport budget, you are just reallocating some of it on a spreadsheet to suit this ideology and claim they met the targets.

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

1.8 billion over the life of the next govt dedicated to cycling, frikkin wow

This Government won't last 5 years. Three would be a good outing.

Pete_Cavan

L1011 wrote: »

This Government won't last 5 years. Three would be a good outing.

Yes, and FF & FG are probably thinking the same. This years transport budget is set anyway, next years largely the same as only large projects already a tender stage will start next year so the cycling:pt:roads ratio probably won't come into play. Like I said earlier, this will be more about a bit of creative accounting than delivering additional infrastructure.

Cookiemunster

L1011 wrote: »

This Government won't last 5 years. Three would be a good outing.

Yeah, I can see it breaking down around the time Martin is due to hand the job of Taoiseach back to Varadker.

Pete_Cavan

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

They won't be able to spend anything like that each year. The pipeline of projects doesn't exist for a start. When you see what you get for €40m, they will quickly run out of projects. You can't get through design/planning quick enough to continuously spend like that, bearing in mind that the low hang fruit will be gone and the remaining projects are more difficult and contentious. In theory you could spend €100m on an amazing greenway from Athlone to Galway to connect Dublin and Galway but it will take a long time to get an agreed route, design it, deal with all the planning challenges, etc.

They will have to include portions of BusConnects costs, the tourist National Secondaries upgrades with cycling routes, any CoCo resurfacing project where they put in 100m of cycle lane, etc. then it is just becomes an accounting exercise. The money is already coming from the Transport budget, you are just reallocating some of it on a spreadsheet to suit this ideology and claim they met the targets.

Yes and no

Often the biggest roadblock to any projects is funding. Thats sorted now. Expect every council around the country to submit applications for funding once they get routes sorted. Heck even funding for feasibility studies was difficult to come by. This should (hopefully) address that too

Pete_Cavan

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes and no

Often the biggest roadblock to any projects is funding. Thats sorted now. Expect every council around the country to submit applications for funding once they get routes sorted. Heck even funding for feasibility studies was difficult to come by. This should (hopefully) address that too

Funding won't be a problem now but the lack of projects will. Look at what is being delivered in the link I provided. Now think about doing 9 times that year after year. The cupboard will be soon bare.

Pete_Cavan

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Funding won't be a problem now but the lack of projects will. Look at what is being delivered in the link I provided. Now think about doing 9 times that year after year. The cupboard will be soon bare.

Giving the example of Galway alone

• Finish the Dublin-Clifden greenway
• The Quiet Man Greenway
• The City-Barna greenway
• Segregated cycle lanes throughout the city
• Segregated cycle lanes throughout the towns

Galway alone could swallow a fairly sizeable chunk of funding on its own to cover all of the above and still have work to do.

Think of it this way, when the money was flowing for them, the motorways couldn't be built fast enough to spend it all. The same is about to happen (hopefully) with cycling/walking infrastructure