Cullen gives go-ahead for long-awaited new motorway

dmeehan

THE Government will reveal today that it has finally given the go ahead for a €1.3bn motorway between Dublin and Waterford stretching 107km.

Transport Minister Martin Cullen is to announce that he has approved the first phase of the Kilcullen to Waterford motorway, the M9/M10.

Councillors at Carlow's annual monthly meeting were told the green light was on for the project, which will take 24 months to complete and will start in July.

Mr Cullen is due to make the announcement officially in Dublin today, the Irish Independent has learned.

Funding has finally been made available from the National Roads Authority and Department of Transport for the phased project.

It is understood the new road network will shave off at least 15 minutes on journey times. Kildare County Council has branded large stretches of the existing N9 Dublin-Waterford route as a high accident location and insists the new highway is vital for safer travel by both local and long-distance vehicles.

The first phase, known as the northern section, will cost an estimated €225m for the first 18km for Kildare County Council, the lead authority.

A total of 1,184 acres in two counties, Kildare and Carlow, are being compulsorily acquired from landowners along the route in the first 46km phase of the new dual-carriageway.

A total of 139 objectors, primarily involving the compulsory purchase orders of land and environmental impact statements, came out against the construction of 46.2km of the overall 107km stretch of road from Kilcullen to Powerstown. The proposed dual-carriageway will largely follow the corridor of the existing N9 between Kilcullen and Prumplestown and then continue around the east side of Carlow town before rejoining the existing N9 at Powerstown.

Meanwhile, a majority of residents living near the proposed route of the new M3 in Co Meath have welcomed the controversial motorway, a recent poll commissioned by the Meath Chambers of Commerce claims.

A recent survey conducted by Orchard Research and Analysis revealed 79pc of a representative sample of residents of the so-called N3 corridor towns of Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells favour the new route while only 21pc are opposed to it. The survey also found that just over a third of residents were aware of the actual route of the proposed motorway while a third of residents erroneously believed the route would go directly through the ancient Hill of Tara.

Sarah Murphy - todays Indo
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1335377&issue_id=12052

BrianD

I would be interested in seeing the questionaire used by the chamber of commerce. Of course those living on the old N3 will welcome a reduction of traffic outside their homes (with the exception of toll avoiding HGV's). Others living further away from the route may not understand that they may have some distance to travel before they can join the m-way.

Here's a thought. The rail link to Dunboyne is on the cards again with a Park & Ride proposed at the terminus. This will obviously mean that users of the M3 can divert into Dunboyne and continue by rail. Where are the toll booths going to be at the city end of the m-way? Will there be an attempt to move them?

dmeehan

BrianD wrote:

The rail link to Dunboyne is on the cards again with a Park & Ride proposed at the terminus. This will obviously mean that users of the M3 can divert into Dunboyne and continue by rail. Where are the toll booths going to be at the city end of the m-way? Will there be an attempt to move them?

are they building(/planning to build) the P+R at the M3 junction or will it be in the town (Dunboyne)?

Lennoxschips

Is this a joke? What do we need a motorway between Dublin and Waterford for? All it will do is turn into a commuter belt.

Crossley

dmeehan wrote:

are they building(/planning to build) the P+R at the M3 junction or will it be in the town (Dunboyne)?

Yes, the P&R will be at Pace (close to the existing junction on the N3 for Fairyhouse).

Re the M9, current and projected traffic volumes wouldn't justify a dual carriageway let alone a motorway. But heh! when did we ever let things like that get in the way. Now if you proposed a railway that would be a different matter :mad:

gurramok

Lennoxschips wrote:

Is this a joke? What do we need a motorway between Dublin and Waterford for? All it will do is turn into a commuter belt.

It must be a joke but then again the minister is from Waterford himself, how ironic
The M3 or this new dunboyne rail proposal should be high priority as it is suffers most from gridlock.

murphaph

Another bloody road the country doesn't need. As with the M3, this road could be upgraded to quality single carriageway with bypasses, 2+1 and proper turning lanes (maybe some grade separation at very busy junctions). It would still require CPOs but would cost far less. Bloody vanity project this one. We haven't even nearly completed M-way/Dualling to Cork or Belfast and this nonsense is announced. I'm not anti-road but I'm certainly more pro-rail. Cork/Belfast/Dublin and I think Limerick (Shannon really) need motorways connecting them to allow speedy movement of freight on our busiest routes but virtually all the other roads could be upgraded very satisfactorily to 2+1 standard. We have such an inferiority complex in this country we feel obliged to do stupid stuff like this so we can have BLUE roads on maps. Pathetic really. This money should go to re-opening Clonsilla-Navan and upgrading the Waterford rail service. Think imaginatively-Dual the Waterford line and allow freight to be transferred to trains in the Midlands-no need for trucks to trundle all the way down just to use the port.

utopian

dmeehan wrote:

A recent survey conducted by Orchard Research and Analysis revealed 79pc... favour the new route....The survey also found...a third of residents erroneously believed the route would go directly through the ancient Hill of Tara.

So that means around 10% favour a motorway going directly through the Hill of Tara?

murphaph

utopian wrote:

So that means around 10% favour a motorway going directly through the Hill of Tara?

That's the price of 'development' my friend :rolleyes:

hawkmoon269

Lennoxschips wrote:

Is this a joke? What do we need a motorway between Dublin and Waterford for? All it will do is turn into a commuter belt.

Indeed. But when has that stopped the NRA spending our money?

mike65

At last! Those of us who actually live in Waterford and would like a decent road are not going to complain. I'd sooner a road was overdone than underdone.

As for "at least 15 mins" saving where did they get that from? Well I suppose its techincally true but in reality its much higher. Try getting through Carlow on a Friday afternoon in less than that. Add all the other damned
bottlenecks and you can save the thick end of an hour at peak times.

Mike.

murphaph

Is this thing due to be tolled?

jhegarty

Lennoxschips wrote:

Is this a joke? What do we need a motorway between Dublin and Waterford for? All it will do is turn into a commuter belt.

i am going to guess you don't live in waterford / have never driven the waterford/dublin road ?

murphaph

jhegarty wrote:

i am going to guess you don't live in waterford / have never driven the waterford/dublin road ?

Could you elaborate? What's wrong with it?
Cheers.

BrianD

The Dublin-Waterford road is pretty poor and does need an upgrade. A motorway is overkill but it does need a major rebuild. A link up with the N11 was also considered but discounted.

weehamster

Looking for Info? Heres the website.

http://n9-n10kilcullen-waterford.ie/index.htm

murphaph

There are loads of crap roads in Ireland, we don't convert 'em all to m-way. This one is definitely a candidate for upgrade, maybe even some dualling a la A1 in NI is getting.

spacetweek

murphaph wrote:

There are loads of crap roads in Ireland, we don't convert 'em all to m-way. This one is definitely a candidate for upgrade, maybe even some dualling a la A1 in NI is getting.

Just to clear up a misconception - the new N9 will be a dual carraigeway, not a motorway. Irish journalists call everything with more than 2 or 3 lanes a motorway.

Dualling an existing road (i.e. just building the lanes going the opposite way, with no proper junctions) has been totally discounted everywhere else. The trend worldwide in the last 20+ years has always been to make a new road from scratch. You've loads of room for making alterations and widenings, and you don't have ask existing residents to live right next to a 4-lane road (e.g. Naas dual carraigeway). The A1 in NI is a rubbish road.

As for the traffic levels, read:

http://www.nra.ie/PublicationsResources/DownloadableDocumentation/Transportation/d1486.PDF

Scroll down to N9 and check out the figures, "Est 2003 aadt". (aadt = average vehicles per day) They're all in the tens of thousands. I think the general rule is that, when traffic goes above 10000 vehicles, a dual carraigeway is needed. We should be building for the future instead of building for now - there's too much of that elsewhere (M50).

Parallel thought - I wonder what will happen to the N10. There'll be no need for it anymore as the new road will pass very close to Kilkenny town.

utopian

dmeehan wrote:

A recent survey conducted by Orchard Research and Analysis revealed 79pc of a representative sample of residents of the so-called N3 corridor towns of Dunshaughlin, Navan and Kells favour the new route while only 21pc are opposed to it.

Sarah Murphy - todays Indo
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1335377&issue_id=12052

And the Meath Chronicle has the headline "80% back M3 route 'as is'". It contains a wonderful pie-chart showing "80% in favour" vs. "20% against".

The first paragraph of the story says "Almost 80% if the residents of Meath are in favour or have no objection to...".

If you're not against us, you're with us.

The same survey of 500 people found that 59.15% of people they interviewed live over 15 miles from work.

murphaph

spacetweek wrote:

Dualling an existing road (i.e. just building the lanes going the opposite way, with no proper junctions) has been totally discounted everywhere else.

Any evidence for that? Our nearest neighbours regularly dual sections of single carriageway rather than building a new scar on the landscape.

spacetweek wrote:

The trend worldwide in the last 20+ years has always been to make a new road from scratch.

The motorway bulding frenzy that happened in Europe in the 50's & 60's actually ended with the oil crisis in the 70's when governments finally began to realise that investment had to be made in public transport and citizens should not be encouraged to drive private motor vehicles everywhere. The m-way bonanza is just beginning here, apparently. I'm not surprised-we never learn.

spacetweek wrote:

You've loads of room for making alterations and widenings, and you don't have ask existing residents to live right next to a 4-lane road (e.g. Naas dual carraigeway). The A1 in NI is a rubbish road

Loads of room for more widenning? What kind of a country do you want to live in? The M25 has up to 12 lanes across in places and it has failed to meet capacity time and time again. Roads encourage more people to drive. The residents already live next to a national primary route-nobody made them buy there. The m-way and associated link roads will have to pass other people's houses anyway. The A1 improvements, particularly around Loughbrickland are great looking. The stretches of old dual carriageway need new asphalt, that's all (standard maintenance that a m-way needs too). The surface of the M50 is as rough as a bag of spanners compared to fresh tarmac.

I'm not anti-road for the sake of it. We need to look far more carefully at these things and learn from othe failed motorways. I believe a high-speed rail link to Waterford would actually remove cars from the current N9/N10.

Zaph0d

dmeehan wrote:

THE Government will reveal today that it has finally given the go ahead for a €1.3bn motorway between Dublin and Waterford stretching 107km.

Snap! Same price as the interconnector. This road must have scored better on the cost/benefit analysis. Specifically, the benefit of re-election in Waterford.

jhegarty

murphaph wrote:

Could you elaborate? What's wrong with it?
Cheers.

large sections of it is little more than a donkey track....the last two times I drove to dublin I passed major crashes .... (lorrie up on a ditch and two cars hit each other head on)...

mackerski

murphaph wrote:

The A1 improvements, particularly around Loughbrickland are great looking. The stretches of old dual carriageway need new asphalt, that's all (standard maintenance that a m-way needs too).

I don't entirely agree. Dualling the remaining stretches will help hugely, as did the original dualling. When the Dualling was intermittent even north of Banbridge it was a PITA, and even the short single carriageway stretches today are a real problem - mostly because they're on tricky terrain anyway, so they're not even good single carriageway.

However, one improved stretch of the A1 does show the weakness of online dualling. The next dual stretch south of the Loughbrickland construction was dualled by retaining the existing road and building a new carriageway. The new one diverges from the old road quite a bit, mostly due to bends. You have the funny situation that when you drive the road northbound, it's flat and straight. Southbound it's bendy, very uppy-downy and with poor sight lines.

However, it's important to realise that this is still better than the situation it replaced. As long as you don't expect to hurtle down this stretch, the capacity of the road is decent, you can still overtake etc. If the new N9 turned out like this in places, I reckon it would be an improvement worth having - but only if it's the only solution on offer. Below spec stretches of dual carriageway can lure drivers into accidents.

Dermot

impr0v

Lennoxschips wrote:

Is this a joke? What do we need a motorway between Dublin and Waterford for? All it will do is turn into a commuter belt.

If you don't mind me asking, where you live?

murphaph wrote:

Any evidence for that? Our nearest neighbours regularly dual sections of single carriageway rather than building a new scar on the landscape.

Building a new road on a greenfield site will regularly work out cheaper than upgrading existing single carriageways, especially when the economic cost of traffic delay during the construction is quantified. The work is also quicker, as there are much less traffic management considerations to take into account. Crucially, in a country where the planning process facilitates the lengthy delay of infrastructure projects by motivated objectors, a greenfield scheme will also prove to be much less contentious than the upgrade of an existing road, as there will be much less disturbance and serious impact upon dwelling houses and communities.

The NRA have only relatively recently acquired the power to veto, or if not veto make strong representations against, new planning applications adjacent to national roads. Prior to this, planning would regularly be granted for domestic and commercial premises adjoined to and accessing on to national primary and secondary roads. Historically, the country has always seen a concentration of population develop along and very close to these roads, not only in towns and villages, but in rural situations also. This ribbon style development means that any proposed upgrading of an existing road inevitably involves an element of property demolition, severe disturbance to a great many properties during construction, and difficulties with seperating carriageways due to the amount of accesses which have to be facilitated on both sides of the road.

Even discounting the above and proceeding with upgrading the current alignment of a national road to dual carriageway, a large proportion of the new road will inevitably have to be on a greenfield site anyway. All villages and towns along the route will have to be bypassed and large sections of the route would have to be completly realigned, as their current horizontal and vertical alignment would not be geometrically sufficient, or safe enough, to deal with the desired speed of 100km/h. This is particularly true of roads which run through undulating topography, or across mountains, as these roads would have evolved from horse and cart times with twisting alignments and many acute turns.

murphaph wrote:

The motorway bulding frenzy that happened in Europe in the 50's & 60's actually ended with the oil crisis in the 70's when governments finally began to realise that investment had to be made in public transport and citizens should not be encouraged to drive private motor vehicles everywhere. The m-way bonanza is just beginning here, apparently. I'm not surprised-we never learn.

Do you consider our inter-urban road stock to be of sufficient quality to service the current needs of the country, and the economy?

I'm not sure what parts of Europe you are referring to above, but perhaps you could contrast the road linking the capital city to the fifth or sixth biggest city in one of those countries with the current state of the N9? Since you made your initial comments in this thread, beginning with 'Another bloody road this country doesn't need' before asking another poster to describe the road to you, I'd doubt you'll be able to do this, but if you do, I'll be very surprised if their road, post 'motorway building frenzy' compared unfavorably to the current N9.

It's easy to make argument about huge road developments and induced traffic, but to my mind that argument is only a valid one once there is a perfectly servicable road in place already, which in this case there patently is not. The current road is extremely dangerous to all users, and woefully inadequate to deal with the current and projected traffic figures.

The point is being made that this decision is somewhat politically motivated, and of course it is to some extent, but the road was developed and was well on its way through the necessary statutory procedures before Cullen was appointed minister for transport. Where politics would come into it is in the argument against developing the road to a 2+1 standard with some grade separation (the lack of homogeneity with this design would also introduce some safety problems), despite the fact that the National Development Plan promised the development of the main inter-urbans to dual carriageway or better standard, because you can be sure that the Waterford and South-Eastern region would regard such a development as a disadvantage to the region when it was compared to the motorway or dual carriageway that would be connecting all the other cities to Dublin.

murphaph wrote:

I'm not anti-road for the sake of it. We need to look far more carefully at these things and learn from othe failed motorways. I believe a high-speed rail link to Waterford would actually remove cars from the current N9/N10.

Of course it would remove some cars, and the argument for public transport investment this country is a no-brainer, however because of historical planning decisions the fact of the matter is that more people currently rely upon roads for freight and transport than any other mode. In order to sustain ecomic growth the infrastructure must be provided as soon as possible for the growth in traffic upon the roads. More should be done to incentivise the shift from road to rail, including massive investment in rail, both current and new routes and stock. However, car-culture is here to stay because of decisions that were made long ago, and a sea change in the way people get from A to B is not going to happen in any short period of time, even with a large investment in rail.

Lennoxschips

If you don't mind me asking, where you live?

I live in Holland, where they don't build 100 km motorways serving towns with a population of 70,000.

jank

I welcome this road because it will open up other towns and cities to development. Waterford is a city that has been left out in a loop for a long while and the south east will benift greatly from it as will Carlow and Killkenny.

Rail links would be nice too and as far as I can see there are no tolls

I live in Holland, where they don't build 100 km motorways serving towns with a population of 70,000

Stick to proc will ya!

1. its not a motorway
2. it will serve many more than just 70,000 people. It will serve most of people of 4 counties.


Its nice to see that at last the people in our cities are to be server with good inter urban roads. All our cities sould be served with a dual-carageway, cause if there not the east coast will still just drain most of the resources of the country

Lennoxschips

Surely more roads leading to Dublin will only make it easier for the east coast to "drain all the resources of the country"? More motorways leading out of Dublin means more of the Irish countryside will be eaten up by the Dublin suburban conglomerate.

jank

Those roads are already built in dublin and to/from it so at the moment that is happening already

But if all cities are connected then it would make businesses, government and most all citizens think twice to building more "adamstown" projects in the dublin region and maybe in the "west of the shannon" region.

If we had a waterford-cork-limerick-galway-sligo high quality dual carriageway link then it would benifit those regions and take resources away from dublin.
Spreading the wealth as you may say.

impr0v

Lennoxschips wrote:

Surely more roads leading to Dublin will only make it easier for the east coast to "drain all the resources of the country"? More motorways leading out of Dublin means more of the Irish countryside will be eaten up by the Dublin suburban conglomerate.

"drain all the resources of the country" is a tad vague. If there are no proper links between the main airport and the commercial centre of the country why would any large, internationally focused businesses locate anywhere else than in that commerical centre? Why would a young mobile working population choose to locate anywhere else if there are no jobs for them? And the "Dublin suburban conglomerate" just gets bigger.

mackerski

Lennoxschips wrote:

I live in Holland, where they don't build 100 km motorways serving towns with a population of 70,000.

Harlingen is quoted as having a population of 15,500. Granted it's not, strictly, speaking, in Holland.

Dermot

murphaph

impr0v wrote:

Do you consider our inter-urban road stock to be of sufficient quality to service the current needs of the country, and the economy?

Already stated that I believe Dublin, Cork, Belfast and Limerick should be m-way connected.

impr0v wrote:

I'm not sure what parts of Europe you are referring to above, but perhaps you could contrast the road linking the capital city to the fifth or sixth biggest city in one of those countries with the current state of the N9?

The UK's biggest city has an urban population of 11 million. Their 5th largest city is Sheffield with an urban population of 1.1 million. But you can't compare Dublin with 1 million to 70,000 in Waterford to this. I've also said I believe the road should be upgraded from it's present state, that doesn't have to automatically mean new building.

impr0v wrote:

Of course it would remove some cars, and the argument for public transport investment this country is a no-brainer

Sadly, there is competition for funding between road and rail. There are finite funds available. I'd rather decent 2+1 and decent rail than a new m-way and same old railway line. Investing in railways apparently is not a vote winner in car dependent one-off housing Ireland. We will never learn.

Victor

jank wrote:

1. its not a motorway

Only so the voters that only have provisional licences can use it.

jank wrote:

But if all cities are connected then it would make businesses, government and most all citizens think twice to building more "adamstown" projects in the dublin region and maybe in the "west of the shannon" region.

Be very careful, Adamstown is part of the solution, not the problem. It takes both commercial and residential weight and puts them close enough together not to be utterly car-dependent (like neighbouring Lucan), while at the same time giving it sufficient critical mass to act as a counter-weight to the city-centre.

jank wrote:

If we had a waterford-cork-limerick-galway-sligo high quality dual carriageway link then it would benifit those regions and take resources away from dublin.

Which are being built.

mackerski

murphaph wrote:

The UK's biggest city has an urban population of 11 million. Their 5th largest city is Sheffield with an urban population of 1.1 million. But you can't compare Dublin with 1 million to 70,000 in Waterford to this. I've also said I believe the road should be upgraded from it's present state, that doesn't have to automatically mean new building.

Does Waterford (city) really have a population that high? I'm seeing a figure of 47,000, and that's an extraopated estimate for 2005. Regardless, we should be careful of judging the road's merits based on current population. We see no end of (true) claims here that road-building triggers development. We also see people claiming (rightly) that there'd be a better balance in the country if a bit of development could take place away from Dublin. So the real justification for the upgrade will probably depend on how much we'd like to see Carlow, Kilkenny and Waterford grow.

Dermot

mike65

jank wrote:

If we had a waterford-cork-limerick-galway-sligo high quality dual carriageway link then it would benifit those regions and take resources away from dublin.
Spreading the wealth as you may say.

Indeed I use the N24 every week and its utter sh!te for most of its length with the following slow-spots to overcome - Mooncoin-Carrick on Suir-Clomnel-Cahir-Tipp-Limerick Junction-Monard-Oola-Pallas Green.

As for upgrading the exisiting N9, clearly thats the road to nowhere. Irish roads are dangerous enough without "improving" them in away that encourages faster average speeds but then leaving the road itself passing by countless homes and businesses and minor rd junctions and the attendent dangers of exiting traffic which is on a completely different wavelength to ppl driving from a to b as quick as legally possible.

A couple of Canadians who live here wrote a great book which looked the phenomenon of local traffic and intercity traffic. They concluded the mix of the two was the single biggest cause of crashes on Irish roads.

An inter-city road needs to be dedicated to performing one task, getting ppl from a to b quickly and safely and thats best done on a Motorway (even an Irish style one).

Mike.

Victor

mackerski wrote:

We see no end of (true) claims here that road-building triggers development.

Not quite. While it may deliver some efficiencies (by-passing bottle-necks), most development spurred by new roads is displaced development from urban to sub-urban / semi-rural locations.

mackerski

Victor wrote:

Not quite. While it may deliver some efficiencies (by-passing bottle-necks), most development spurred by new roads is displaced development from urban to sub-urban / semi-rural locations.

But do you not think that an improved infrastructure would boost the appeal to industry (and prospective residents) of places like Waterford?

Dermot

Victor

mike65 wrote:

An inter-city road needs to be dedicated to performing one task, getting ppl from a to b quickly and safely and thats best done on a Motorway (even an Irish style one).

Then we stick in as many interchanges as possible

Victor

mackerski wrote:

But do you not think that an improved infrastructure would boost the appeal to industry (and prospective residents) of places like Waterford?

Perhaps it would, but not in a value for money manner. To divert, why did the put the airport in a place where the least number of people can avail of it (anyone from Carlow, Kilkenny or Wexford needs to go through Waterford to get to the airport, Waterford county people can bypass the city centre)? The airport only really serves Waterford City and Tramore.

This road is mostly parallel to the N11 and the residents of Waterford will see little extra benefit from the investment of €1bn. This road is about trying to secure 5 seats in Carlow Kilkenny, not the 4 in Waterford.

impr0v

Victor wrote:

Only so the voters that only have provisional licences can use it.

Incorrect. As you well know the particular law you are referring to is very seldom if ever enforced. The road is to dual carriageway standard because the traffic volumes don't warrant constructing the road to the more expensive motorway standard.

Victor

impr0v wrote:

Incorrect. As you well know the particular law you are referring to is very seldom if ever enforced. The road is to dual carriageway standard because the traffic volumes don't warrant constructing the road to the more expensive motorway standard.

As best I know all the "high quality-dual carriagways" are being built to motorway standard, except they have a broken yellow line, instead of a solid yellow line on the hard-shoulder.

Lennoxschips

Interesting:

Taken from this link:
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~camway/roads_projects/N25/waterfordbypass/oral_hearing/waterford_dublin_motorway.html

It is also significant that despite the consultants to the Waterford Bypass, Eubank Preece O'Heocha, using a sophisticated computer modelling system to determine predict traffic flows, Ms. Connie Feeley, an engineer working with the NRA in their Tramore office, changed the size of the N9 from a 2 lane road to a 4 lane motorway/dual-carriageway in February 2000 as a result of nothing more than a telephone call from the NRA head office.

impr0v

Victor wrote:

As best I know all the "high quality-dual carriagways" are being built to motorway standard, except they have a broken yellow line, instead of a solid yellow line on the hard-shoulder.

They do call the scheme a high quality dual carriageway in the EIS, and previously that spec would have been very close to Motorway levels, but as you can see here the cross section is significantly narrower than a motorway, with a new jersey style concrete barrier in the median.

Specifically the carriageway is 0.5m narrower than the corresponding motorway width (7.0 vs 7.5m), the hard shoulder is similarly 0.5m narrower (2.5m vs 3.0m) and the central reservation is 3.0m wide as opposed to 7.0m on a motorway. Also, there is a 5.0m working strip acquired on each side on this scheme, when 8.0m is the usual size of the strip with a motorway cross section.

As you can imagine, the above differances account for a substantial decrease in the amount of land needed to be acquired, and can lower the cost of the scheme significantly. The lower design speed of 100km/h also gives more flexibilty with the design of the horizontal alignment as the curve radii don't need to be as high as those needed on a motorway, which can aid in the reduction of severance of farm holdings and the avoidance of other constraints, which again can help to reduce the costs.

Lennoxschips

If it's reducing costs we're after then why not a 2+1 road? The traffic on that road does not warrant four lanes.

spacetweek

Lennoxschips wrote:

If it's reducing costs we're after then why not a 2+1 road? The traffic on that road does not warrant four lanes.

Build for the future, not for now. In Ireland there is far too much revisiting and head scratching and people commenting on how something should have been made bigger in the first place. Look at the M50. If the N9 was only 2 lanes we'd be back to it in 10 years wondering why we didn't make it a DC.

I think it was in 1999 when the NDP was launched, that the decision was made that all planned interurban roads would be made DC's even if traffic currently wasn't enough to justify them. I totally agree with this. With a DC for Waterford, you won't need to touch the road, once opened, for 20-30 years at least. It's called making something future-proof.

As for the difference between a "high quality dual carriageway" and motorway, there are several points:

1. Cheaper due to smaller cross section and junctions, and less junctions
2. Less time to build: usually 24 months vs. around 36 for an m-way
3. More friendly to adjacent landowners as access is not just permitted at junctions - ideal for rural area

A motorway would be overkill for a road to a city the size of Waterford, so the HQDC is ideal.

Lennoxschips

I think it was in 1999 when the NDP was launched, that the decision was made that all planned interurban roads would be made DC's even if traffic currently wasn't enough to justify them. I totally agree with this. With a DC for Waterford, you won't need to touch the road, once opened, for 20-30 years at least. It's called making something future-proof.

Perhaps, but then why not just upgrade the road from New Ross to Enniscorthy to a DC, to link Waterford up to the N11, and make the N11 a full DC. That way you kill two birds with one stone. The current approach is like trying to kill one bird with two stones.

mike65

Thats a fair point Lennoxchips, the reason the "costal route" was'nt chosen was entirely down to local politics in Carlow and Kilkenny.

Mike.

spacetweek

Lennoxschips wrote:

Perhaps, but then why not just upgrade the road from New Ross to Enniscorthy to a DC, to link Waterford up to the N11, and make the N11 a full DC. That way you kill two birds with one stone. The current approach is like trying to kill one bird with two stones.

In fairness I agree with you here. I suspect, though, that their thinking was as follows:

1. We need a road Dublin-Waterford
2. We need to improve the coast road

They considered the two in isolation, without making the link.

More specifically, they could have upgraded the N30, the road between Waterford and Enniscorthy, where you could have linked up with N11 improvements south of Gorey, and connected to the N25 Waterford bypass. This would save you having to build the entire N9.

However, as mike65 says, this would have left everyone in Carlow and Kilkenny in the lurch.

impr0v

mike65 wrote:

Thats a fair point Lennoxchips, the reason the "costal route" was'nt chosen was entirely down to local politics in Carlow and Kilkenny.

I see where you and other posters are coming from with this, but surely it's about giving the Carlow/Kilkenny region, and to an extent the entire N9 corridor, as good access to Dublin as the rest of the country and the same opportunities to grow as a commerical or otherwise centre rather than local or party politics. The same people making this argument will be in other threads making points about Dublin being allowed to develop too much and the lack of decentralisation and jobs outside of Dublin.

In regard to the question of the magic '2+1' number that seems to be the buzz word in the forum of late and some sort of magic bullet to fix all ills, how do the people calling for the country to be criss-crossed with a network of these roads even know they'll work in an Irish context? The NRA think they will, but there isn't even any scheme on the ground in the country as yet (to the best of my knowledge) to test that hypothesis, the first one is going to construction soon enough on the N20 in Cork as part of a pilot programme. I know that they have been shown to work well in a scandanavian environment but I'm sure Irish drivers will react to them in their own unique way. As soon as it's built there'll more than likely be a member of the 'I'm not against roads for the sake of it' brigade on here complaining about the number of accidents on it or the relatively narrow width of the carriageways, or the wire rope barriers, etc.

If the N9 was built to a 2+1 standard, or the N9 was left entirely off the cards and the traffic channelled towards the coast route, then when the N11 is choked in 5, 10 or 20 years time, some of the same arguments would be being made then as are being made now in relation to the M50. 'Why couldn't it have been planned properly from the outset?' or 'Why didn't they have the foresight to put two lanes each way on it?' There is no pleasing some people.

murphaph

2+1 works very well elsewhere, not just Scandinavia. I've driven on it in France and Canada myself. No problems. Don'tsee why it wouldnt work here. If people can't drive properly in Ireland it's not because of the road type-it's becase driver education is so damned poor. 2+1 is not a vote-winner however.

thejollyrodger

I have to agree, the dual carriage way is the best option. Its future proof. It can be upgraded to motorway if need be in the future and its safe and quick to build. The road to Waterford is a discrace.

impr0v

murphaph wrote:

2+1 works very well elsewhere, not just Scandinavia. I've driven on it in France and Canada myself. No problems. Don'tsee why it wouldnt work here. If people can't drive properly in Ireland it's not because of the road type-it's becase driver education is so damned poor. 2+1 is not a vote-winner however.

I mentioned Scandanavia because Sweden is acknowledged as being the country which has led the way in research and development of the road type, though I wasn't aware that France and Canada had embraced them. I'm not saying that there will be problems with their use, just that it would be prudent to wait until there is at least one scheme on the ground before pronouncing them the solution to the Irish infrstructure deficit.

The 'vote-winner' thing is often used to throw negative light on something, i.e. if a plan is a vote-winner then it's been done for selfish and parochial reasons, and the implication is that it's contrary to the common good. This seems to me to detract from the obvious fact that if some initiative or plan is a vote-winner it means the majority of the people want it, even though you may not. For better or for worse, this is democracy.