Do people underestimate the need for roads.

prunudo

I wasn't sure whether to stick this on the n11 thread but in reality it crosses all roads into big towns cities so said I'd start a fresh thread to open up the debate and not derail the others.
I've been thinking a lot (never good) about the problems facing commuters, ever increasing traffic, longer times and distances. As has been proven if you add extra lanes it seems to just attract more traffic and while public transport can help I'm starting to wonder are we missing a glaring problem in this a solution.

I'll use Dublin as an example but I'm sure its the same around the country. Housing has got to the stage where majority of families need two incomes to cover the mortgage, in most cases both parents having to work long hours to cover bills. Throw creche/childcare into the mix and quite possibly you have one dropping the kids in the mornings, the other collects and so now you have 2 cars going back into a city. For every new housing development built in the commuter belt this is probably not far off reality.

While on paper you can say add bus lanes, car pooling etc, the problem is a lot deeper and in reality because of the society we now live in, peoples dependency on private car use isn't going to change anytime soon. Buses will work for some and they do need improvement in frequency but to think that they'll work for a vast majority of people is ill judged.
As I said on the other thread, it feels like model is broken and until the councils and planning authorities take note we're going to keep needing roads for both personal and goods transport.

donvito99

prunudo wrote: »

peoples dependency on private car use isn't going to change anytime soon.

If you build high quality public transport like as seen in lots of other countries and if you zoned houses next to that public transport instead of along new motorways next to shopping outlets with enormous car parks, you would find that private car use would change dramatically and approach the levels seen in lots of other countries.

Pete_Cavan

prunudo wrote: »

While on paper you can say add bus lanes, car pooling etc, the problem is a lot deeper and in reality because of the society we now live in, peoples dependency on private car use isn't going to change anytime soon.

In many cases, societal changes happen faster than the time it takes to design, obtain planning, get funding signed off and build a large road. Building a new motorway through green fields in populated areas takes the best part of a decade with all the consultations, designing in mitigations, environmental considerations, appeals, cabinet sign off at every step. Look how society has changed in the last 10 years and change will continue to happen faster with developing technologies.

The need for roads is pretty much universally recognised. It's the need for an ever increasing number of traffic lanes for heavy traffic for a few hours a day that is rightly questioned, particularly given the cost of it and the opportunity costs. If relieving traffic congestion long term is the goal, more road space for cars has been proven to not be the solution.

I live in Navan. There is no train line in Navan. The bus Éireann service to Dublin is terrible. Buses are often delayed and full already when they arrive. Then the bus goes through Blanch, Finglas, Glasnevin, Phibsboro and takes a long time to reach city centre.

The M3 parkway train station is the opposite side of the toll making it expensive to use. And it’s far away from Navan anyways.

So everybody living in Navan with a car will be using the car.

An underground system should have been worked on years and years ago. Adding more buses and trams is just clogging the roads even more.

Companies setting up outside city centre would help a lot too.

highdef

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I live in Navan. There is no train line in Navan.

The funny thing is that there is a train line in Navan and it is in active use. In fact, the train station location is less than 5 minutes walk from the centre of town. However, only freight trains serve this line so of no benefit to commuters. It's also not a very direct line to Dublin and the line it joins to work at Drogheda is already very busy.

Stan27

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I live in Navan. There is no train line in Navan. The bus Éireann service to Dublin is terrible. Buses are often delayed and full already when they arrive. Then the bus goes through Blanch, Finglas, Glasnevin, Phibsboro and takes a long time to reach city centre.

The M3 parkway train station is the opposite side of the toll making it expensive to use. And it’s far away from Navan anyways.

So everybody living in Navan with a car will be using the car.

An underground system should have been worked on years and years ago. Adding more buses and trams is just clogging the roads even more.

Companies setting up outside city centre would help a lot too.

Re your last part.
https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058024318/3/#post111670926

A point I was trying to make is of a company set up outside Dublin, with so many people commuting, they should be able to get a good workforce as people who commute far would love the chance to commute less.

The cycling and public transport things are just fancy hip buzzwords and come from nobody living in actual reality. Of course we need roads and will for a long time to come.

Seth Brundle

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

The cycling and public transport things are just fancy hip buzzwords and come from nobody living in actual reality. Of course we need roads and will for a long time to come.

Because commuting into the cities by car has shown itself to be so successful :rolleyes:

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Because commuting into the cities by car has shown itself to be so successful :rolleyes:

Because the only people on the roads are commuters.

:rolleyes: indeed

donvito99

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Because the only people on the roads are commuters.

:rolleyes: indeed

Yes, because you cannot own a car and cycle to work. It's banned.

donvito99

donvito99 wrote: »

Yes, because you cannot own a car and cycle to work. It's banned.

This is about needing roads whether you personally own a car or not.

donvito99

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

This is about needing roads whether you personally own a car or not.

But there are roads??? There's loads of them, billions spent on them in fact. Where the roads are mad with traffic, it's not the roads fault/

Seth Brundle

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Because the only people on the roads are commuters.

:rolleyes: indeed

The roads with big problems tend to be the over-subscribed commuter routes (what are the problems with the other roads?)
Indeed!

prunudo

I see the point of my post has been totally missed. We've created or been sold a society where both parents need to work, usually long hours and over lapping of collecting children from childcare. This isn't compatible with the public transport system we have now, in 5 years or even planned for in 20 years. The reliance on private car isn't going anywhere.

Seth Brundle

So the system is broken so no point trying to fix it?

prunudo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So the system is broken so no point trying to fix it?

The system is ****ed. Planning authorities are granting permission for developments further and further away from Dublin and these are being marketed as commuting distance back to Dublin. And when anything ambitious is proposed, whether its a metro, a high rise, a new bus system or an upgrade of a road its held up for years and watered down.
Everything is geared for you having to go back to the big population centres and its not going to change anytime soon.

The other thing is everyday you see people being told that buying electric cars are the way forward and you'll be saving the environment. You can't on one hand market it as 'oh you'll save the world if you switch to electric' and now say 'oh by way, all cars are bad you must jump on a bus'.

hans aus dtschl

prunudo wrote: »

The system is ****ed. Planning authorities are granting permission for developments further and further away from Dublin and these are being marketed as commuting distance back to Dublin. And when anything ambitious is proposed, whether its a metro, a high rise, a new bus system or an upgrade of a road its held up for years and watered down.
Everything is geared for you having to go back to the big population centres and its not going to change anytime soon.

The other thing is everyday you see people being told that buying electric cars are the way forward and you'll be saving the environment. You can't on one hand market it as 'oh you'll save the world if you switch to electric' and now say 'oh by way, all cars are bad you must jump on a bus'.

Lots of truth in this post, but we don't reach the same conclusions. Roads will always be needed, I agree. But I don't think they're the obvious solution to all of the problems we're currently facing. And this isn't just a Dublin issue either - it's country-wide. We are absolutely in the thrall of motor companies, as a society. I suspect that it's because they supply the majority of advertising money to our media.

The electric cars thing is just a sham when our grid isn't green. You won't be saving the environment, you just won't be harming it quite as much, and you'll be part of the same senseless traffic.

As I see it, new developments should have proper proven transport capacity: we can't keep planning sprawl and putting "this development will have 40% private car usage" on the proposals. Councils need to actually measure the amount of car usage to/from the various developments and the developers should be fined if their development doesn't meet the stated sustainable transport goals. The money created should be put directly into the transport budget. In this way, estate developers in Navan could directly fund the transport to and around Navan.

We currently have a situation where developments go ahead based on what are effectively falsified traffic figures.

Example:
There's talk of a new Kildare Village type development in a Cork suburb. It will be developed on what is currently a very heavily trafficked inter-city dual carriageway. The council plans to change the local area plan so that this can go ahead!!!!! We all know what will happen to traffic in the area. Who should be responsible when it happens? I suggest that no new road should be built for this development. I suggest that the developer should be held partly responsible for the traffic, not as a one-off council "contribution" (bribe), but as an ongoing % of their income from the development.

the dark phantom

Buses need to use roads too and our non motorway roads are shockingly slow so its easier and more efficient to have a car

hans aus dtschl

the dark phantom wrote: »

Buses need to use roads too and our non motorway roads are shockingly slow so its easier and more efficient to have a car

Yes and there's even more to that, too. Cars are effectively subsidised as a mode of transport, given the expenditure on infrastructure for them, the deaths that result from them, the emissions, the health drawbacks of inactivity etc etc.

On the other hand we - as a society - tend to balk at the idea of heavily subsidising public transport. We don't like the idea of "the inefficient bus company", for instance.
My car sits idle for somewhere north of 20 hours a day, and when it runs, it contributes emissions, traffic and danger to the environment.

So when you say "more efficient" I know what you're saying, I'm reading it as "far more convenient in its purpose" but it's simultaneously a hideously inefficient mode of transport. And if the true cost of motoring were shouldered by private motorists (and I am one!) and we simultaneously ringfenced a budget for all transport as a percentage of the national budget, and took it out of the election cycle of end-of-term announcements, we could begin to see a modal shift.

Because at the moment it is as you say "more efficient" - despite being totally inefficient! They're the height of "short term" thinking, really. That doesn't mean that roads aren't needed, but it means that what we're currently using roads for (in Cork City and its environs for example) is ridiculous in the extreme. It's mostly single-occupancy journeys under 10km. "More roads" in that context is just a waste of money. In my opinion of course.

whisky_galore

highdef wrote: »

However, only freight trains serve this line so of no benefit to commuters.

Without it, there would be more lorries on the road, yes?

Chris_5339762

From my perspective, I live in Cobh and work on the west side of Cork.

Even with Dunkettle and ever-increasing delays on the South Ring I can get into work in 50 minutes (40 - 45min drive and 10 mins walk from carpark), and home in just under an hour at the worst of traffic.

Public transport wise I actually have two options.

1) Take the Cobh Connect bus service. Drive to Cobh (10 mins), take the bus to Cork (30-40 mins using the same roads as cars) then find myself having to take a 20-30 min 208 bus to work. Total is well over an hour.

2) Drive to Cobh (10 mins) take the train to Cork (25 mins), walk a few hundred meters to where the 208 bus passes and get a 20-30 min bus to work.

3) Cycling simply isn't an option as the Fota Road is a deathtrap with no cycle lanes.

Either option is far longer, more convoluted, and involves waiting times that make it take far longer than just getting in the car.

Any option I have seen in CMATS or future public transport for Cork will do absolutely nothing about the problems with the tunnel and the N40, and apart from a modest increase in Cobh - Cork train times out to 2040 and the vague promise of a Luas linking the train station to where I work, there is absolutely nothing on the cards that will tempt me out of my car.

And thats the problem. You need better public transport. Yes, it'll be expensive, but there are things that can be done and even if they cost a fortune, people will locate near them.

Hows about
- Building that Luas and extending it from Mahon to the Cobh/Monkstown ferry. Or a spur to Little Island?
- Immediately take one lane of the Tivoli dual carriageway and make it a bus lane?
- Take one half of the south link completely away and turn it into either a Luas or a heavy rail line back out to Bandon. Most of the alignment (apart from some small bits) is still there.
- Build the North Ring, widen the Douglas Viaduct

And thats what I can think of right now and hardly any of that is in CMATS and none of it in the next 20 years anyway.

Chris_5339762

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Example:
There's talk of a new Kildare Village type development in a Cork suburb. It will be developed on what is currently a very heavily trafficked inter-city dual carriageway. The council plans to change the local area plan so that this can go ahead!!!!! We all know what will happen to traffic in the area. Who should be responsible when it happens? I suggest that no new road should be built for this development. I suggest that the developer should be held partly responsible for the traffic, not as a one-off council "contribution" (bribe), but as an ongoing % of their income from the development.

That plan is absolutely cracked, and whats more there is a perfectly good rail line a 500m walk from it, but no station nor any plans for one.

whisky_galore

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

From my perspective, I live in Cobh and work on the west side of Cork.

Even with Dunkettle and ever-increasing delays on the South Ring I can get into work in 50 minutes (40 - 45min drive and 10 mins walk from carpark), and home in just under an hour at the worst of traffic.

Public transport wise I actually have two options.

1) Take the Cobh Connect bus service. Drive to Cobh (10 mins), take the bus to Cork (30-40 mins using the same roads as cars) then find myself having to take a 20-30 min 208 bus to work. Total is well over an hour.

2) Drive to Cobh (10 mins) take the train to Cork (25 mins), walk a few hundred meters to where the 208 bus passes and get a 20-30 min bus to work.

3) Cycling simply isn't an option as the Fota Road is a deathtrap with no cycle lanes.

Either option is far longer, more convoluted, and involves waiting times that make it take far longer than just getting in the car.

Any option I have seen in CMATS or future public transport for Cork will do absolutely nothing about the problems with the tunnel and the N40, and apart from a modest increase in Cobh - Cork train times out to 2040 and the vague promise of a Luas linking the train station to where I work, there is absolutely nothing on the cards that will tempt me out of my car.

And thats the problem. You need better public transport. Yes, it'll be expensive, but there are things that can be done and even if they cost a fortune, people will locate near them.

Hows about
- Building that Luas and extending it from Mahon to the Cobh/Monkstown ferry. Or a spur to Little Island?
- Immediately take one lane of the Tivoli dual carriageway and make it a bus lane?
- Take one half of the south link completely away and turn it into either a Luas or a heavy rail line back out to Bandon. Most of the alignment (apart from some small bits) is still there.
- Build the North Ring, widen the Douglas Viaduct

And thats what I can think of right now and hardly any of that is in CMATS and none of it in the next 20 years anyway.

How about river services on the Lee?

If it was any other city there would be water taxis but never here. There's only so many cars you can stuff onto already clogged roads, even with improvements.

Chris_5339762

This was actually supposed to happen, a river service from Aghada to Cobh to Passage to Cork. It died in the recession sadly.

AugustusMinimus

Public transport is great. However, it generally only works where there is high density development.

We’re continuing with low density sprawl. This allied with zero investment in roads to service low density development is causing an absolute cluster****.

Do one or the other but don’t do things that directly contradict each other.

donvito99

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

This allied with zero investment in roads to service low density development is causing an absolute cluster****.

The total transformation of the road network in this country facilitated this sprawl in the first place.

AugustusMinimus

donvito99 wrote: »

The total transformation of the road network in this country facilitated this sprawl in the first place.

No. Poor planning and awful development policies facilitated it. Most of Europe has better road networks than we have without resulting in urban sprawl.

hans aus dtschl

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

- Immediately take one lane of the Tivoli dual carriageway and make it a bus lane?
- Take one half of the south link completely away and turn it into either a Luas or a heavy rail line back out to Bandon. Most of the alignment (apart from some small bits) is still there.
- Build the North Ring, widen the Douglas Viaduct

Agreed. Instead we're narrowing the footpaths in an effort to get more car lanes in and STILL designing new road infrastructure that we know doesn't work for bus, pedestrian or cycle. That's in Cork anyway. It's all just car car car.

I commute by car too, so I'm in no way perfect and I certainly contribute to the problems, but the "cars first and cars only" attitude in the council is beyond infuriating. They cannot seem to comprehend prioritising any other mode. Sustainable transport is considered "for poor people" or "for students and elderly". Serious people use the car, obviously.


Anyway, back on the point of the thread, I don't underestimate the need for roads anyway. I do think that the current ratio of roads spending in comparison with all other transport spending needs to be re-balanced. Not necessarily by cutting road spending though. But it is very frustrating to see over a billion pledged to roads and simultaneously "not enough money for plastic wands to protect cycle lanes".

SeanW

donvito99 wrote: »

The total transformation of the road network in this country facilitated this sprawl in the first place.

No, it didn't. Building roads while neglecting public transport and "planning" based on brown envelopes is what caused the car dependent sprawl. Most all of the major destinations built in Ireland over the past 75 years or so (Dublin, Cork and Shannon Airports, Mahon Point Shopping Centre in Cork, Liffey Valley, Blanchardstown in Dublin, all share one thing in common - none were built anywhere near the railway network. Each of these and probably more were missed opportunities to plan things properly and make the railways more useful to the people. There were other failures too, like neglecting to invest in public transport at the same time as building roads, allowing one off houses to be built on national roads, building "inner relief roads" (a.k.a. stroads) instead of proper bypasses, the list goes on.

But much of the road investment that has occurred has been in the area of long distance national routes, and legitimate bypasses. Take a look at the M8 Cork-Dublin (well OK Co. Laois to be specific) as an example. How many people built one-off houses in Aghaboe, Co. Laois so that they could commute via the full M8 to Cork? Very few? Then the construction of roads must have had another raison d'être than facilitating commuters!

There is no question that roads are warranted for reasons not just commuting. Freight vehicles, long distance leisure travel and other reasons. Especially given how badly planned our destinations are as I alluded to above, it's clear that the failure was not in building the roads, but in not doing anything else properly.

My current thinking about the need for roads is based on the Strong Towns approach in the USA. They advocate more strict segregation of purpose between roads (which should be about getting people from place to place quickly, efficiently and safely) versus streets (which are about capturing value in complex spaces). So for my part, I would prefer less nonsense like routing through traffic through towns and cities (Kilmacanoge, Co. Wicklow, this shambles of an inner relief road in Carrick on Shannon, Galway and so on). In short, more well functioning streets and more motorways. But of course, that's just roads and streets. In addition dealing with the above by means of segregating long haul and local travel, I believe that the minimum transport investment now required to make Ireland functional again would include, but not be limited to:

• New planning rules requiring new major destinations to be sited near major public transport stations/lines.
• Dublin Metro, at least from Swords to Bray, ASAP. Feasibility study into an orbital metro.
• Scrap the joke of a "National Children's Hospital" and build a proper facility where the Dublin Metro and the M50 intersect. Station for the hospital on the Metro, link road to the nearest M50 junction.
• DART Underground to be added to the pathetic DART expansion plan and all of it to be done ASAP. Feasibility studies into expanding the lines from Connolly station to 3 and 4 tracks where possible, to allow long distance trains to overtake DARTs going to Maynooth, Drogheda, Hazelhatch etc.
• New railway tunnel from Greystones to Bray. Twin track electrified, well in from the sea.
• CMATS in Cork, in full. Electrify Cork's commuter system with branded electric trains, e.g. the CART? Run electrification and EMU trains from Mallow through Cork to Cobh and Midleton. Determine the most suitable route for a Cork Luas and build the first line. Build all the roads called for in the plan.
• Fully encircle as many towns as possible with high speed ring roads, then lower speed limits inside the rings and re-prioritise road space to non-motorists.
• Properly funded municipal school systems that can guarantee a place to a child in the area. This in turn guarantees that a school bus system can be planned in the area around those schools.

If all of that is done, we might find ourselves in a situation where not every train line in Dublin is a slow, crush loaded mess, the M50, N40 etc. isn't a car park, and commutes and other types of travel are reasonably fast, safe and efficient. But I'm not holding my breath, alas.

AugustusMinimus

SeanW wrote: »

No, it didn't. Building roads while neglecting public transport and "planning" based on brown envelopes is what caused the car dependent sprawl. Most all of the major destinations built in Ireland over the past 75 years or so (Dublin, Cork and Shannon Airports, Mahon Point Shopping Centre in Cork, Liffey Valley, Blanchardstown in Dublin, all share one thing in common - none were built anywhere near the railway network. Each of these and probably more were missed opportunities to plan things properly and make the railways more useful to the people. There were other failures too, like neglecting to invest in public transport at the same time as building roads, allowing one off houses to be built on national roads, building "inner relief roads" (a.k.a. stroads) instead of proper bypasses, the list goes on.

But much of the road investment that has occurred has been in the area of long distance national routes, and legitimate bypasses. Take a look at the M8 Cork-Dublin (well OK Co. Laois to be specific) as an example. How many people built one-off houses in Aghaboe, Co. Laois so that they could commute via the full M8 to Cork? Very few? Then the construction of roads must have had another raison d'être than facilitating commuters!

There is no question that roads are warranted for reasons not just commuting. Freight vehicles, long distance leisure travel and other reasons. Especially given how badly planned our destinations are as I alluded to above, it's clear that the failure was not in building the roads, but in not doing anything else properly.

My current thinking about the need for roads is based on the Strong Towns approach in the USA. They advocate more strict segregation of purpose between roads (which should be about getting people from place to place quickly, efficiently and safely) versus streets (which are about capturing value in complex spaces). So for my part, I would prefer less nonsense like routing through traffic through towns and cities (Kilmacanoge, Co. Wicklow, this shambles of an inner relief road in Carrick on Shannon, Galway and so on). In short, more well functioning streets and more motorways. But of course, that's just roads and streets. In addition dealing with the above by means of segregating long haul and local travel, I believe that the minimum transport investment now required to make Ireland functional again would include, but not be limited to:

• New planning rules requiring new major destinations to be sited near major public transport stations/lines.
• Dublin Metro, at least from Swords to Bray, ASAP. Feasibility study into an orbital metro.
• Scrap the joke of a "National Children's Hospital" and build a proper facility where the Dublin Metro and the M50 intersect. Station for the hospital on the Metro, link road to the nearest M50 junction.
• DART Underground to be added to the pathetic DART expansion plan and all of it to be done ASAP. Feasibility studies into expanding the lines from Connolly station to 3 and 4 tracks where possible, to allow long distance trains to overtake DARTs going to Maynooth, Drogheda, Hazelhatch etc.
• New railway tunnel from Greystones to Bray. Twin track electrified, well in from the sea.
• CMATS in Cork, in full. Electrify Cork's commuter system with branded electric trains, e.g. the CART? Run electrification and EMU trains from Mallow through Cork to Cobh and Midleton. Determine the most suitable route for a Cork Luas and build the first line. Build all the roads called for in the plan.
• Fully encircle as many towns as possible with high speed ring roads, then lower speed limits inside the rings and re-prioritise road space to non-motorists.
• Properly funded municipal school systems that can guarantee a place to a child in the area. This in turn guarantees that a school bus system can be planned in the area around those schools.

If all of that is done, we might find ourselves in a situation where not every train line in Dublin is a slow, crush loaded mess, the M50, N40 etc. isn't a car park, and commutes and other types of travel are reasonably fast, safe and efficient. But I'm not holding my breath, alas.

The original location for Cork Airport was near Carrigtwohill beside the rail line. Presume brown envelopes pushed it where it is today. It’s in a terrible location, prone to fog.

Chris_5339762

Oh yes, as well as all these infrastructure bits, lengthen Corks main runway slightly, lengthen the crosswind runway for use with jets and install whatever CAT I/II or III upgrades are necessary to allow landing in fog.

SeanW

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

The original location for Cork Airport was near Carrigtwohill beside the rail line. Presume brown envelopes pushed it where it is today. It’s in a terrible location, prone to fog.

I wouldn't be in the least surprised.

ianobrien

To be fair, I don't hear of flights being diverted in Cork Airport due to fog now. Before it was quite common but you don't hear it now.

The original location in Carrigtwohill was either on or near the location of one of the first military airfields in the British Isles (ex RAF). Maybe the powers that be didn't want to be seeing using and ex RAF airfield.

Oh, apologies for going off topic.

Back on topic. The problems that I see are (note I'm not a professional planner)

1. The length of time taken between planning permission being granted and first sod being turned.
2. Running to the High Court if you don't like the decision after a public hearing was held
3. The "yerra that's grand" approach to doing it properly (the free flow junctions on the M50, South Link Road, Dunkettle interchange). Why oh why do the stick roundabouts everywhere? They force traffic to stop whereas a free flow junction vehicles don't stop!
4. The absolutely crazy timetables and fare structures for public transport (I live 20 minutes from work by car, bus would take me over 2.5 hours, with the bus from Cork to Ringaskiddy taking over an hour!
5. Appearing not to be basing the decisions of what's build on traffic volumes or delay times (Date, N71)

Chris_5339762

All of the morning departures can get away in fog, thats no problem. Airport isn't busy enough for major delays in those departures either.

First flight in is generally around 10am so MOST fog has cleared by then anyway. Its when its clears very very late or forms in the evening that the fun starts.

hans aus dtschl

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

All of the morning departures can get away in fog, thats no problem. Airport isn't busy enough for major delays in those departures either.

First flight in is generally around 10am so MOST fog has cleared by then anyway. Its when its clears very very late or forms in the evening that the fun starts.

Evenings, yep. Hasn't happened to me in a year or two mind you.

whisky_galore

ianobrien wrote: »

The original location in Carrigtwohill was either on or near the location of one of the first military airfields in the British Isles (ex RAF). Maybe the powers that be didn't want to be seeing using and ex RAF airfield.

Non issue, Baldonnel was ex RAF and still in use by Air Corps. The first incarnation of Galway airport was ex RAF as well.
Knowing Ireland, a monetary incentive rather than distaste for everything British more likely.

hans aus dtschl

whisky_galore wrote: »

Non issue, Baldonnel was ex RAF and still in use by Air Corps. The first incarnation of Galway airport was ex RAF as well.
Knowing Ireland, a monetary incentive rather than distaste for everything British more likely.

Yeah...just a wild thought from me here but....perhaps a close friend of a member of government owned the land (which was relatively worthless) and had hidden members of said government on the land while they were on the run during the war of independence.

Martin Corry TD was head of the Knockraha IRA and also responsible for the burying of many RIC bodies.

When the government came to pick a location for Irelands first airport, the selection of Foynes/Shannon was of critical importance to the state and was done in a very methodical manner. Cork airport...was not quite as transparent and there was a lot of faction fighting, as you can read below.
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1955-11-09/11/
Ahanesk is not near the old RAF airfield (Annstown, Mogeely). More entertainingly Ahanesk does not have hills anywhere near it, it's a very similar site to Shannon!

My personal belief is that Corry was pulling for Ahanesk (that was the area he operated) and somebody else with even more sway pulled for Ballygarvan. Neither was the old RAF Airfield on the railway line though. And there's no proof anywhere of the direct interference of anyone other than Corry.

Anyway, back on roads....
I don't think it's fair to say that people underestimate the need for roads. Personally I think we overestimate the need for roads. I don't think the general public is of the mindset that "something needs to be done about the lack of sustainable transport", to the extent that we on the Infrastructure forum might be.

fonzy951

The reason Ballygarvan was chosen over Ahanesk is fully outlined in an independent expert's report discussed in an Oireachtas debate (1955):
"Ballygarvan was selected because it was reported to be superior to any other possible site in the Cork area in respect of proximity to Cork City, suitability of ground for [518] the necessary runways, clearness of approach and feasibility of installing lighting and radio aids. It was reported that on the Ahanesk site the grades on the runways would be severe as the ground is undulating, and that the approaches from the north and north-east, which pass over a range of hills attaining a height of 600 feet, would frequently be hazardous in the weather conditions prevalent in the area. Meteorological conditions at Ballygarvan were found to be less favourable than at Ahanesk, but any disparity between the two sites which arises from meteorological conditions can be nullified to a great extent by the use of up-to-date navigation and radio aids."
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1955-11-09/11/

Independent expert's ruled Ahanesk was far from the perfect site, undulating ground and hills very close by to the north and north-east (run from Glounthane to Midleton). I've been to the Ahanesk site and the report seems spot on tbh.
Also, there is zero evidence of political interference, both FG and FF politicians agreed to go with Ballgarvan, except for a disgruntled east Cork TD who wanted the airport in Ahanesk.

hans aus dtschl

fonzy951 wrote: »

The reason Ballygarvan was chosen over Ahanesk is fully outlined in an independent expert's report discussed in an Oireachtas debate (1955):
"Ballygarvan was selected because it was reported to be superior to any other possible site in the Cork area in respect of proximity to Cork City, suitability of ground for [518] the necessary runways, clearness of approach and feasibility of installing lighting and radio aids. It was reported that on the Ahanesk site the grades on the runways would be severe as the ground is undulating, and that the approaches from the north and north-east, which pass over a range of hills attaining a height of 600 feet, would frequently be hazardous in the weather conditions prevalent in the area. Meteorological conditions at Ballygarvan were found to be less favourable than at Ahanesk, but any disparity between the two sites which arises from meteorological conditions can be nullified to a great extent by the use of up-to-date navigation and radio aids."
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1955-11-09/11/

Independent expert's ruled Ahanesk was far from the perfect site, undulating ground and hills very close by to the north and north-east (run from Glounthane to Midleton). I've been to the Ahanesk site and the report seems spot on tbh.
Also, there is zero evidence of political interference, both FG and FF politicians agreed to go with Ballgarvan, except for a disgruntled east Cork TD who wanted the airport in Ahanesk.

Ah no. We're way off topic here, but those hills are 5km directly north of the Ahanesk site at their closest. The site and its surroundings are pretty much pan flat. It has plenty of other problems but hills aren't high on the list! Most importantly, neither site is the old RAF one near Mogeely.

Let's get back to roads though!

fonzy951

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Ah no. We're way off topic here, but those hills are 5km directly north of the Ahanesk site at their closest. The site and its surroundings are pretty much pan flat. It has plenty of other problems but hills aren't high on the list! Most importantly, neither site is the old RAF one near Mogeely.

Let's get back to roads though!

Are you saying the independent aviation expert's brought in to fully access both sites where part of the conspiracy too, come on
You earlier said there was no hills nearby at all. I reckon its about 3km to the nearest hills directly north which would be extremely close for ascending/descending aircraft on that path. I've been to the actual site and its very undulating and its certainly not pan flat, do you even know where the site is? I'm not trying to have go off you and won't post any more on this but your facts are way off.

Chris_5339762

One question before we go back on topic... Can someone post a google maps view of the old RAF location near Mogeely? I'd like to see where it is.

I'm guessing here - https://goo.gl/maps/5Gs1W4d4wbfN7TuJ9 - but that is only because its a very large field with squares in it.

hans aus dtschl

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

One question before we go back on topic... Can someone post a google maps view of the old RAF location near Mogeely? I'd like to see where it is.

I'm guessing here - https://goo.gl/maps/5Gs1W4d4wbfN7TuJ9 - but that is only because its a very large field with squares in it.

Just south of the rail line there.

hans aus dtschl

fonzy951 wrote: »

Are you saying the independent aviation expert's brought in to fully access both sites where part of the conspiracy too, come on
You earlier said there was no hills nearby at all. I reckon its about 3km to the nearest hills directly north which would be extremely close for ascending/descending aircraft on that path. I've been to the actual site and its very undulating and its certainly not pan flat, do you even know where the site is? I'm not trying to have go off you and won't post any more on this but your facts are way off.

Yeah I'm there every few days. Unless we're at cross-purposes, it's almost directly south of the quarry. I agree it'd have needed levelling - no question - but so did Ballygarvan. I'm saying pan flat with respect to Ballygarvan. You can just do a distance measurement on Google maps, if you like! And I don't disagree with the aviation experts at all, it was they who apparently wrote of Ahanesk:

We are quite satisfied that on this site Cork has an airport adequate for both present and, as far as can be foreseen, future requirements, in suitable surroundings and within easy reach of the city. We believe this to be the only site on which a practicable and entirely satisfactory aerodrome could be made at moderate expenditure and within a reasonable period of time.

There was a site in use there at the time, I think for flying boats.

GreeBo

Until people start to live closer to where they work we are always going to have a traffic problem.

All the public transport in the world isnt going to remove the need for some people to have to travel by car, even if they are travelling under 10KM.

Every morning and every evening the M50 turns into a carpark as people travel 20-30Km to and from work. Each of the ramps is even more a car park as they are far too frequent and immediately bring you onto local roads that cant handle the traffic.
Tallaght, Dundrum, Carrickmines, Ballymount, etc, etc.

People are travelling too far every day and no road network is going to be able to cater for that, at least not without significant investment. (Overpasses, flyovers, tunnels, etc, etc are required to remove congestion points, big roundabouts and junctions just cant cope with peak traffic demands)

As the cost of commuting rises (in both monetary and time terms) my expectation is that people will either move house or jobs and the problem will take care of itself.
There comes a point 3 hours commuting isnt worth the 10K extra you can earn by being in the city centre versus the suburbs.

hans aus dtschl

GreeBo wrote: »

There comes a point 3 hours commuting isnt worth the 10K extra you can earn by being in the city centre versus the suburbs.

As far as I can tell that point also sometimes comes relatively early. The true cost of motoring is quite obfuscated. If you can get by without owning a car then avoiding the depreciation, maintenance, fuel, tax, etc will quickly save you quite a lot of money. When you add in the time-cost of hours spent sitting in traffic, not directly earning money it gets more significant. Add in the health benefits of active transport and you begin to see something of a windfall in monetary and time respects.

Roads aren't going away any time soon, but our highly inefficient use of them potentially might!

fonzy951

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Yeah I'm there every few days. Unless we're at cross-purposes, it's almost directly south of the quarry. I agree it'd have needed levelling - no question - but so did Ballygarvan. I'm saying pan flat with respect to Ballygarvan. You can just do a distance measurement on Google maps, if you like! And I don't disagree with the aviation experts at all, it was they who apparently wrote of Ahanesk:

We are quite satisfied that on this site Cork has an airport adequate for both present and, as far as can be foreseen, future requirements, in suitable surroundings and within easy reach of the city. We believe this to be the only site on which a practicable and entirely satisfactory aerodrome could be made at moderate expenditure and within a reasonable period of time.

There was a site in use there at the time, I think for flying boats.

Ahh the Martin Corry extract The response from Mr. Norton (Labour party, Minister for Industry and Commerce) says it all on that.

The position so far as the Minister for Industry and Commerce is concerned is that, in a matter of this kind, he has to be guided by the technical experts who are employed by him for the purpose of advising him as to what is the best site for an airport, having regard to all the conditions which must be taken into consideration, including the essential condition of the safety of the passengers who will use the airport. In this particular case both my predecessor and I have come to the conclusion that the Ballygarvan site is the most suitable site having regard to the reports made to us by competent technicians who have inspected the area for the purpose of ascertaining the most suitable site; and the only safe and sensible thing that a Minister for Industry and Commerce can do in the circumstances is to rely on the sound technical advice which he gets from persons who have no personal axe to grind and who are concerned only with discovering what appears to be the best site having regard to all the circumstances involved. I am sure the Deputy will understand that neither I nor any other Minister can act on the advice of technicians in transit who take a hurried glance at a prospective airfield and then give an interview to a newspaper and say they are satisfied, after this cursory inspection, that it is the most suitable site.

magicbastarder

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

3) Cycling simply isn't an option as the Fota Road is a deathtrap with no cycle lanes.

....

Hows about
- Building that Luas and extending it from Mahon to the Cobh/Monkstown ferry. Or a spur to Little Island?
- Immediately take one lane of the Tivoli dual carriageway and make it a bus lane?
- Take one half of the south link completely away and turn it into either a Luas or a heavy rail line back out to Bandon. Most of the alignment (apart from some small bits) is still there.
- Build the North Ring, widen the Douglas Viaduct

And thats what I can think of right now and hardly any of that is in CMATS and none of it in the next 20 years anyway.

or how about building cycling infrastructure, which you mentioned is not there?

hans aus dtschl

magicbastarder wrote: »

or how about building cycling infrastructure, which you mentioned is not there?

The space is certainly available for it, and it would cost relatively little.

But then Chris reaches the Dunkettle interchange which has no cycling facilities currently and extremely poor cycling facilities planned in the upcoming multi-millio-euro road upgrade.

Next up, Chris would hit Tivoli where the council have recently actively built a more dangerous architecture for cyclists and increased the speed limits to improve the motorised transport flow.

When you scratch the surface you can see that roads infrastructure for motorists gets the lions share of investment in this country despite so much discussion about "modal shift". Whether that's due to incompetence or by design or both.

Again it's important to say that I drive. So I'm not "holier than thou".

And some here say "but roads are good for buses too".
To that I say that the transport infrastructure trajectory currently can be summarised as "more lanes for cars". If it were otherwise, then Tivoli DC would have been made into a bus lane during the recent upgrades. The Little Island bridge new road lane would have been a bus lane. I could carry on and on...but in general almost all roads infrastructure is being done for the benefit of cars.

And we're all simultaneously getting lectured by the likes of the NTA about how we need to change our habits.

betistuc

The last time Fianna Fail were in power, they managed to get a few roads built. Fine Gael don't seem to have the same enthusiasm especially with that clown Ross at the Transport helm. He seems to have an aversion to road building however needed the scheme might be.

Is it time to give Fianna Fail another go. They might just make a decent fist at finishing the job

magicbastarder

there was close to a billion euro worth of road upgrades announced in the aftermath of the budget, IIRC.

betistuc

magicbastarder wrote: »

there was close to a billion euro worth of road upgrades announced in the aftermath of the budget, IIRC.

Announcing is easy. basically just vote catching. Fianna Fail actually went out and did it.