New Galway to Dublin road plans get green light

spacetweek

From Indo

New Galway to Dublin road plans get green light

15:38 Thursday June 16th 2005

The go ahead has been given for a new road which will reduce the time of a journey from Dublin to Galway.
The 55 kilometre dual carriageway will be built between Ballinasloe and Galway city.

It is the most expensive infrastructural project ever undertaken in the west.

A toll fee will be charged for using it.

It's going to be a dual carraigeway, designated N6, but you'll have to pay a toll. What does everyone think? I think tolls should only be for motorways, I don't think you should have to pay to use an N-road.

murphaph

spacetweek wrote:

From Indo



It's going to be a dual carraigeway, designated N6, but you'll have to pay a toll. What does everyone think? I think tolls should only be for motorways, I don't think you should have to pay to use an N-road.

This is no ordinary N road. It's a motorway called a dual carriageway-presumably so farmers can drive tractors along it or some such nonsense. Tolling is perfectly acceptable on this scheme.

N6 Galway-Ballinasloe

BrianD

Why does it end in a round about in Galway?? Could they not put in a grade separated junction?

murphaph

BrianD wrote:

Why does it end in a round about in Galway?? Could they not put in a grade separated junction?

Looks like a temporary measure......

The route for the N6 Galway to East Ballinasloe scheme links with the proposed future Galway Outer Bypass (GCOB) between Garraun North townland and the proposed Glennascaul junction. In mid 2002, due to the possible delay between the construction of the N6 Galway to East Ballinasloe scheme and the GCOB, it was necessary to design the N6 Galway to East Ballinasloe scheme as a self contained scheme. Glennascaul junction was not a suitable location for the termination of the scheme and it was therefore decided to extend the N6 scheme into the existing N6 dual carriageway at the proposed junction at Coolagh, east of Galway city. The extension follows the proposed line of the GCOB for 2 km, and then connects to the existing dual carriageway roughly halfway between the two roundabouts, at Doughiska and Briarhill

murphaph

Interestingly this scheme has no grass in the central reservation. It's to be a concrete barrier by the looks of it. See attachment.

Victor

Yup, quite a few roads are being built like that now.

spacetweek

murphaph wrote:

This is no ordinary N road. It's a motorway called a dual carriageway ...

By the looks of that cross section (the lane widths), it won't be up to motorway standard. It's termed a "high-quality dual carriageway".

By the way, it's probably perfectly good for the route it's going to serve. The point I'm making is that it shouldn't be tolled.

murphaph

spacetweek wrote:

By the looks of that cross section (the lane widths), it won't be up to motorway standard. It's termed a "high-quality dual carriageway".

3.5m are standard motorway lane widths. When the M50 is 'upgraded' the lane widths will reduce to 3m, hence a lower (100km/h limit).

spacetweek wrote:

By the way, it's probably perfectly good for the route it's going to serve. The point I'm making is that it shouldn't be tolled.

Why not? It has to be paid for somehow, if you don't like it, don't use it.

bandraoi

bout friggin time they bypasses Loughrea!

Yippeee!

murphaph

bandraoi wrote:

bout friggin time they bypasses Loughrea!

Yippeee!

You won't have to wait for this road to bypass Loughrea. The town is getting a single carriageway bypass in the short term, long before this N6 dual carriageway opens. In fact this road passes quite some distance from loughrea, passing close by Athenry.

bandraoi

actually I've seen the plans for that, I had sort of assumed that this was that plan.

As you've said the Loughrea bypass isn't really a bypass, it's more a large scale straightening of the Dublin - Galway Road.

Robbo

The single carriageway Loughrea bypass is scheduled for December of this year but it rumoured to be a bit ahead of schedule.

If I never have to drive through that timewarp of a town again, it won't be enough.

thejollyrodger

any idea when it will open ?

murphaph

Robbo wrote:

If I never have to drive through that timewarp of a town again, it won't be enough.

There are some weird towns in that part of the world

jank

Why not? It has to be paid for somehow, if you don't like it, don't use it.

Did u see the prime time program on the NRA and the "need" for tolls on roads!

It would be much cheaper in the longrun to build it 100% from government funds

murphaph

jank wrote:

Did u see the prime time program on the NRA and the "need" for tolls on roads!

It would be much cheaper in the longrun to build it 100% from government funds

You're confusing Public Private Partnerships with tolled roads. I would actually prefer to see this road and all road PPPs funded solely from central government and tolled by the government to recoup the cost from the user over a shorter 'concessionary' period. Intercity stretches of motorway like this should be tolled. Bypasses should be free as there's a benefit for the town residents as well as the motorist.

jank

murphaph wrote:

You're confusing Public Private Partnerships with tolled roads. I would actually prefer to see this road and all road PPPs funded solely from central government and tolled by the government to recoup the cost from the user over a shorter 'concessionary' period. Intercity stretches of motorway like this should be tolled. Bypasses should be free as there's a benefit for the town residents as well as the motorist.

So this road is funded by taxpayers money and then they throw a toll at it for 30 odd years?

murphaph

jank wrote:

So this road is funded by taxpayers money .....

Absolutely not. Government have access to the cheapest money on earth because the perceived risk of lending to a government (stable) is so low. The government can borrow the money at much lower rates than a PPP private partner can.

jankand wrote:

...then they throw a toll at it for 30 odd years?

No, the taxpayer doesn't throw anything at it. The end user does. It wouldn't have to be for 30 years either. The government borrows at substantially lower rates than a private toll operator, therefore there's less to repay. Also, the government wouldn't have to make a 'profit' after the road construction costs were repaid so the tolls could be withdrawn immediately upon loan repayment. It might only be 10 years with the traffic levels we're now experiencing.

jank

Government have access to the cheapest money on earth because the perceived risk of lending to a government (stable) is so low. The government can borrow the money at much lower rates than a PPP private partner can.

But they still have to pay back the money sometime dont they. Last I heard Ireland didnt qualify for its debt to be written off like some african countries.

Put whatever spin on it its still taxpayers money, borrowed or not

The government borrows at substantially lower rates than a private toll operator, therefore there's less to repay.....

Also, the government wouldn't have to make a 'profit' after the road construction costs were repaid so the tolls could be withdrawn immediately upon loan repayment. It might only be 10 years with the traffic levels we're now experiencing.

Thats a good point. I would much rather have the government in charge of tolling operations rather then a private company But what really makes you think that the government would really shut up shop once its costs for the road has been recindled. That is never going to happen unless its part of an election plegde of some sort, and we all know they come through!

murphaph

jank wrote:

But they still have to pay back the money sometime dont they. Last I heard Ireland didnt qualify for its debt to be written off like some african countries.

Put whatever spin on it its still taxpayers money, borrowed or not

It's not spin at all. When a private operator wishes to build a motorway for tolling they don't just whip out their wallets and pay for construction, they borrow the funds from various sources of finance. They have to pay it back and they pay it back with tolls taken. Replace the private operator with a government who can borrow at significantly lower rates and there you have it. The taxpayer is essentially used as the security for the loan, but doesn't repay it.

jank

murphaph wrote:

It's not spin at all. When a private operator wishes to build a motorway for tolling they don't just whip out their wallets and pay for construction, they borrow the funds from various sources of finance. They have to pay it back and they pay it back with tolls taken. Replace the private operator with a government who can borrow at significantly lower rates and there you have it. The taxpayer is essentially used as the security for the loan, but doesn't repay it.

Putting it that way is a good argument but its still the taxpayer who will always pay at the end of the day imo.

Metrobest

Motorway tolls are fair. They're fair because the people who want to use the high-quality road, pay for it. And they're fair because cars damage the environment, and tolls can discourage people from making long journeys by car.

mackerski

murphaph wrote:

This is no ordinary N road. It's a motorway called a dual carriageway-presumably so farmers can drive tractors along it or some such nonsense. Tolling is perfectly acceptable on this scheme.

Without getting into the argument about whether you should get decent roads for free (although it's a tempting one):

The NRA policy on road numbering is one that troubles me. Here are the things I have a problem with:

1. Stripping of N-classification from roads duplicated by motorways.

Detrunking the old road is, strictly speaking, valid. You expect that, if there's a motorway, it should be the main route for most traffic (though see my comment about toll roads). However, motorway-prohibited (or scared) traffic can still benefit from maintaining the original designation and leaving the signage intact - of course, they tend to leave the old signage up anyway, which gives us the worst of all worlds. A further oddity is that a detrunked road that has lost its national status, despite that fact that it is, with its reduced traffic volumes, now safer, enjoys a drop in speed limit. Councils may choose to apply a 100 limit, but so far seem disinclined to do so.

2. Stripping the N-classification from roads duplicated by toll roads

The most obvious instance of this is the old N1 via Drogheda. The NRA (or government, whoever) can't have it both ways - either a section of road is a luxury that should be used only by those willing to pay or it's the definitive route that everybody should be using. It's unreasonable to strip the N1 identity from the free road through Drogheda because it makes navigation harder for the drivers who choose not to pay the toll.


It's my second comment that applies most to this particular situation. It's reasonable to charge for a road and then allow the market to decide whether to use it. It's not reasonable to down-classify the old road and make it harder for drivers to avoid the toll.

Dermot

murphaph

mackerski wrote:

It's my second comment that applies most to this particular situation. It's reasonable to charge for a road and then allow the market to decide whether to use it. It's not reasonable to down-classify the old road and make it harder for drivers to avoid the toll.

Totally agree. The original road should not be detrunked IMO-they should just build all the 'high quality dual carriageways' as motorways and be done with it, or at least they should create NXXX roads where the road to be replaced by motorway/tolled dual carriageway is reclassified as N600 for example so drivers who wish to continue taking the old trunk road can continue doing so with ease. Also agree the speed limit should remain at 100km/h on these roads as you correctly point out-they have fewer vehicles so you'd assume they're now safer!

The current system of bits of MX/X and NX/X and whatever else is asking for trouble.

Victor

There are a few problems there:

(a) central goverment is resposible for funding all National Roads. There would be the temptation for council to fiddle things to their favour (not unknown in this country). Of course taking Nation Road design away from councils would be handy.

(b) some of the new routes vary significantly from the original route (especially the N6). On for example the N7 at Port Laoise, if I want to head to Cork, I would be promted to take the existing N8 to Cork rather that the proposed M8 which starts much further (2-3 junctions) west.

(c) NXXX, e.g. N600 would mean duplicated route numbers with Regional Routes - the existing R600 Cork (Airport)-Kinsale-Clonakilty route.

(d) Speed limits are for councils to implement, let them get their fingers out.

murphaph

Victor wrote:

(a) central goverment is resposible for funding all National Roads. There would be the temptation for council to fiddle things to their favour (not unknown in this country). Of course taking Nation Road design away from councils would be handy.

Supposedly the local design offices are overseen by the NRA, but we all know how good they are at overseeing anything.

Victor wrote:

(b) some of the new routes vary significantly from the original route (especially the N6). On for example the N7 at Port Laoise, if I want to head to Cork, I would be promted to take the existing N8 to Cork rather that the proposed M8 which starts much further (2-3 junctions) west.

If the road was the M6 or N6(M) all the way and the 'old' road was left as N6 what would be the problem?

Victor wrote:

(c) NXXX, e.g. N600 would mean duplicated route numbers with Regional Routes - the existing R600 Cork (Airport)-Kinsale-Clonakilty route.

But that's not duplication, the N600 isn't the same as the R600. The UK has A and B roads with same number following, the A2 and B2 just over the border in NI for example.

gerrydublin

spacetweek wrote:

It's going to be a dual carraigeway, designated N6, but you'll have to pay a toll. What does everyone think? I think tolls should only be for motorways, I don't think you should have to pay to use an N-road.

I have no problem with tolls on any type of road, as long as the money I pay is used to keep that road up to a high standard!
The East-Link isn't the country's biggest motorway!

As regards this road in particular, I have a slight problem.
Despite the fact that I'm from the Pale, my attitude is that if we ever want real decentralisation from the overcrowded city that is my Dublin, then we need to improve transport in "other regions".
If the Government sub-contract road construction in and around Dublin(where demand for road space is currenly massive) to the private sector in return for tolls,
then the government can spend their money on building up the infrastucture in the West.
This might begin to encourage a greater development in the West, and in doing so, reduce the overcrowding in Dublin.
By the time my grandchildren finish school, there might be balanced growth, and a greater quality of life to be had by all.
Ahh hell, that's pie in the sky stuff, no I say toll every road that brings culchies to Dublin!

murphaph

gerrydublin wrote:

This might begin to encourage a greater development in the West, and in doing so, reduce the overcrowding in Dublin.

Dublin isn't overcrowded. It's perhaps the least densely populated capital city in Europe, and maybe the world.

Victor

murphaph wrote:

Victor wrote:

(b) some of the new routes vary significantly from the original route (especially the N6). On for example the N7 at Port Laoise, if I want to head to Cork, I would be promted to take the existing N8 to Cork rather that the proposed M8 which starts much further (2-3 junctions) west.

If the road was the M6 or N6(M) all the way and the 'old' road was left as N6 what would be the problem?

And the N8 which starts in Port Laoise, but the M8 which won't start in Port Laoise?

But that's not duplication, the N600 isn't the same as the R600. The UK has A and B roads with same number following, the A2 and B2 just over the border in NI for example.

I disagree. I think the British system (in duplicating the number part and the ) is a bad system, particularly in it's implemention in the North (In particular the motorways and the A2).

murphaph

Victor wrote:

And the N8 which starts in Port Laoise, but the M8 which won't start in Port Laoise?

What's the problem with it though? They're two different roads. If the M8 begins at a junction near Rathdowney and the N8 began at it's original point in Port Laoise (I assume it's in the town centre) it would be ok. Basically roll back the clock on all N roads which are superceded by motorways so that they all run through towns like they did originally. It would offer a tourist route roughly equivalent to the new road. Of course none of this is essential with an accurate atlas but it would be handy for tourists setting out from Dublin for Cork to be able to take the slow scenic route.

Victor wrote:

I disagree. I think the British system (in duplicating the number part and the ) is a bad system, particularly in it's implemention in the North (In particular the motorways and the A2).

I shouldn't have cited NI as an example-it has the worst road numbering in the UK. There are the same examples from GB though. Why do you think numbering a road N600 because there's already an R600 is a bad idea though?

John R

murphaph wrote:

I shouldn't have cited NI as an example-it has the worst road numbering in the UK. There are the same examples from GB though.

M1 and A1 / A1(M) two entirely different routes, don't ever remember any confusion over them.


IMO what the NRA did with the old N1 was far worse than just renumbering, they also altered a number of junctions where the old main road met previously minor R roads so as to make navigating the former route extremely difficult without local knowledge.

LFC Murphy

.

Maskhadov

how much have they done so far ?

PixelTrawler

2-3 weeks if the rumours true

Victor

The N6 Loughrea Bypass is due to open on 25th November, 2005.

http://www.nra.ie/

Maskhadov

http://www.galway.ie/roads/n6_bsloe/news1.html
Mr.Eisling said if the project was approved, work was expected to begin early 2006 and was likely to be finished by the end of 2008.

Is that article correct ? I dont know if the N6 East Ballinasloe - Galway is actually going to start early 2006.

mackerski

Maskhadov wrote:

Is that article correct ? I dont know if the N6 East Ballinasloe - Galway is actually going to start early 2006.

The author can't decide whether the scheme is a motorway or dual-carriageway. Why should any of the rest of the article be accurate?

Dermot

Tarabuses

murphaph wrote:

Why not? It has to be paid for somehow, if you don't like it, don't use it.

Then what do we use since this is now the N6?

spacetweek

murphaph wrote:

Basically roll back the clock on all N roads which are superceded by motorways so that they all run through towns like they did originally. It would offer a tourist route roughly equivalent to the new road. Of course none of this is essential with an accurate atlas but it would be handy for tourists setting out from Dublin for Cork to be able to take the slow scenic route.

Not really following this murphaph. Most trunk routes are being replaced by a new N route. In this case we can't keep the original route as a tourist route, as this would result in the same designation. We'd have to rename one of them. The only way to keep the original routes and build new ones alongside is to come up with some new designation e.g. NE (National Expressway) meaning a high-quality dual carriageway or else renumber e.g old N6 to N600 which is messy.

But then, like mackerski said, they usually leave all the old signs up, so the old routes aren't really detrunked anyway.

I really do think though that at least in the case of a tolled section the non-toll route (i.e. the original route) should be clearly signposted from start to finish. It'll take longer to drive but it's free, so it should be left up to the motorist to decide. Hiding the original route due to junction redesign is dodgy chicanery (like John R said about the old N1).

murphaph

spacetweek wrote:

The only way to keep the original routes and build new ones alongside is to come up with some new designation e.g. NE (National Expressway) meaning a high-quality dual carriageway or else renumber e.g old N6 to N600 which is messy.

...or just classify all the new roads as M-way as should be done. They've started this motorway standard A-road nonsense in the UK too, usually to hoodwink environmentalists that it's not a big bad m-way, honest!

jlang

We've a bit of that here too - the Arklow bypass and the N2 to Ashbourne coming to mind as motorway level designs that keep their N-road classification. If they were N road with 120km/h speed limits I wouldn't mind.