nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

What are your essential Irish Infrastructure projects, in order of need?

Consonata

Just thought it would be interesting to see where peoples priorities are in terms of Irish infrastructure, and what is on everybodys wish list. I'll only do my top 3 for now.

1. Metro North + DU - If only to alleviate the squished housing market in Dublin so that people can commute from Swords to the City for work in a fairly easy and quick fashion, not to mention all the business opportunities it offers.
A rail link between the north and south of the city should've been built decades ago, but better late than never

2. A proper National Health Service - I know it might be debatable whether this is "infrastructure" or not, but as far as I'm concerned, I would be remiss if I did not include the absolute need for a proper integrated health network in the country. The current system is wasteful, it is not fit for purpose, and is driving Doctors and Nurses abroad due to the awful conditions. This is a problem that needs to be solved now. Not 10 years down the line

3. Western Motorway Corridor - Galway - Limerick - Cork is in desperate need of improved public transport, and a motorway is probably the best way to sort it. A motorway between Sligo and Cork would cut hours off the journey time, considering the mess it is trying to get through Galway Traffic, and the chaos between Limerick and Cork.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

D.L.R.

BoatMad wrote: »

Agressive package to relocate business and people away from GDA, especially to west of Athlone ( after motorways are built )

Delusional nonsense. Dublin's size is a natural consequence of its location, always has been always will be. Nobody wants to move to rainy Connaught.

The other main cities can to some extent share the load but Dublin's growth must be catered for.

This hairbrained idiocy that the state needs to somehow 'divert' Dublin's growth has to stop. Its a small city in world terms.

pigtown

A quick look at google maps shows that a rail route from Charleville to Portlaoise via Limerick city, Nenagh, and Roscrea is only about 15km longer than the current route via Limerick Junction. It'd be interesting to see if a new Cork-Dublin rail line via Limerick, and its additional 100,000 population, would be a viable idea. Obviously a major rebuild would be required, as well as a new train station for Limerick.

Heartbreak Hank

Although it would probably be a major hold up to the already held up M20 scheme, if a rail line form Charleville to Limerick is a possibility, would it not make sense to build the rail line in parallel to the M20 (diverting for stations if required)? Surely there would be a significant economy of scale in doing so?

pigtown wrote: »

A quick look at google maps shows that a rail route from Charleville to Portlaoise via Limerick city, Nenagh, and Roscrea is only about 15km longer than the current route via Limerick Junction. It'd be interesting to see if a new Cork-Dublin rail line via Limerick, and its additional 100,000 population, would be a viable idea. Obviously a major rebuild would be required, as well as a new train station for Limerick.

marno21

Realistically the M20 should be built at this stage and the discussion should be about rail.

Instead it's a one or the other discussion. M20 it is in that case

The feeling I get from official circles is that intercity rail is seen as a complete economic basket case, that is nothing but a money pit and for which the economic justification just doesn't add up.

Ireland is just too small a country to really justify intercity rail, which is damn expensive to build and run.

You can forget about new intercity rail being built or major investment in it. Best case scenario is that the existing lines are kept alive, limping along on life support with minimum investment. Worst case scenario we will see line closures.

Trying to get a rail line built alongside the M20 is a good way of guaranteeing that the M20 will never get built!

In terms of rail, DU is unlikely to see the light for decades to come. MN is getting the long finger, but will likely eventually get done, it simply makes too much sense, despite every political attempt to kill it. Other then that, don't expect much more then some Luas extensions, DART extensions and maybe one other new Luas line.

I also hear whispers that a certain poltically powerful people are trying their level best to try and kill the M20. A lot of politics around it again, even though it makes loads of sense.

Please don't shot me, I'm just the messenger, I'm just passing along the whispers I hear.

Banjoxed

Deedsie wrote: »

The Limerick - Nenagh - Ballybrophy line will be closed unfortunately but that line could be viable. It should be the main Limerick to Dublin line and it needs to be upgraded. But as you have said no chance.

Any whispers who these politically powerful people are?

Voters in Tipperary

BoatMad

Deedsie wrote: »

The Limerick - Nenagh - Ballybrophy line will be closed unfortunately but that line could be viable. It should be the main Limerick to Dublin line and it needs to be upgraded. But as you have said no chance.

Any whispers who these politically powerful people are?

Intercity rail is a basket case and carries a tiny minority of travellers . While we have need for mass transit rail in dublin , in reality we dont need it anywhere else

The justification for Ireland railways was freight particulary live exports , passengers were not a priority , hence the poor realignments, light construction that is prevalent

marno21

bk wrote: »

The feeling I get from official circles is that intercity rail is seen as a complete economic basket case, that is nothing but a money pit and for which the economic justification just doesn't add up.

Ireland is just too small a country to really justify intercity rail, which is damn expensive to build and run.

You can forget about new intercity rail being built or major investment in it. Best case scenario is that the existing lines are kept alive, limping along on life support with minimum investment. Worst case scenario we will see line closures.

Trying to get a rail line built alongside the M20 is a good way of guaranteeing that the M20 will never get built!

In terms of rail, DU is unlikely to see the light for decades to come. MN is getting the long finger, but will likely eventually get done, it simply makes too much sense, despite every political attempt to kill it. Other then that, don't expect much more then some Luas extensions, DART extensions and maybe one other new Luas line.

I also hear whispers that a certain poltically powerful people are trying their level best to try and kill the M20. A lot of politics around it again, even though it makes loads of sense.

Please don't shot me, I'm just the messenger, I'm just passing along the whispers I hear.

I don't think Ireland is too small for intercity rail, especially if the cities in the intercity network have good onward connections in the cities and there is sufficient density near the terminal station.

Of course it doesn't help that CIE operate the rail network, an organisation that couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery. I can't see DART Underground going ahead whilst CIE are in charge of rail because CIE needs dismantling fast and giving it billions for capital investment won't help there.

It's very easy to see the M20 is being held back politically if you read the M20 thread. The money required to progress the scheme, €15m, is apparently not there yet there is money galore for upgrades of the N5 and pet projects like the Listowel bypass. If there was any interest in progressing the M20 it would be back in planning, €15m is pittance given the amount being spent by DTTAS annually.

Deedsie wrote: »

It should be both? Dont think I have ever heard any transport bodies or elected officials advocate for a direct rail link from Cork to Limerick.

As in if the reason not to build the M20 was rail connection, rail freight, rail commuters etc etc I think it would have been more palatable for people.

I want the M20, Cork NR, Limerick Northern distributor and a rail network in Munster. Is that too much to expect?

Limerick is connected to Dublin, Galway, Nenagh and Waterford by rail. It's connected to Dublin, Galway and Nenagh by motorway. There is definately a case for a Limerick-Charleville line if the above are deemed viable.

No it's not too much and I'd tack on N21, N22, N24, N25, N28 and N71 upgrades along with rapid transit in both cities onto that list amongst others.

Deedsie wrote: »

The Limerick - Nenagh - Ballybrophy line will be closed unfortunately but that line could be viable. It should be the main Limerick to Dublin line and it needs to be upgraded. But as you have said no chance.

Any whispers who these politically powerful people are?

Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy needs significant capex to be viable and even then would likely be under pressure given the motorway parallel to the route and the lack of proper PT connections in Limerick. It's a miracle its existed to this day but I think its time is up. It's the only rail link I think is worth closing due to the poor state of the line and the high cost of subvention.

BoatMad wrote: »

Intercity rail is a basket case and carries a tiny minority of travellers . While we have need for mass transit rail in dublin , in reality we dont need it anywhere else

The justification for Ireland railways was freight particulary live exports , passengers were not a priority , hence the poor realignments, light construction that is prevalent

If it had competitive fares and was run properly by an organisation interested in providing a functional intercity rail service perhaps it wouldn't be so much of a "basket case".

CIE have no interest in rail freight hence the lack of it bar the odd trains from Ballina etc.

Deedsie wrote: »

Rail transport in Ireland is a basket case for many reasons, it could be very much viable linking cities and large towns. There are smaller stations that could be closed to save money.

When Ennis-Athenry was reopened the shamefully long journey times could've been cut by removing stations such as Ardrahan, Craughwell and the planned one at Crusheen. If a village doesn't warrant an exit from a motorway it hardly needs a train station.

Deedsie wrote: »

Rail transport in Ireland is a basket case for many reasons, it could be very much viable linking cities and large towns. There are smaller stations that could be closed to save money.

The problem is economically it doesn't make sense.

It requires massive amounts of subsidy just to keep going, yet returns journey times that are no quicker then the non-stop bus services running on the motorways, which don't require a cent of taxpayer subsidy (the private companies).

If it is to compete with the motorways, it needs high speed rail level of service, but that would cost billions.

And then you have the massive pension deficit that will have to be dealt with in the next few years, going to be damn ugly.

Praetorian

On the Dublin Cork line what is stopping higher speeds than 100mph? If it was electrified could higher speed trains run on those 60 kg rails?

billyduk

1.) M20 Motorway between Cork and Limerick - This is an absolute must at this stage and i'm shocked its been shelved again.

2.) Dublin Metro North - At 27M passengers per year, Dublin airport needs a modern rail link to the city. It would also dramatically reduce the rush hour congestion in Drumcondra, Phibs, Whitehall, Santry etc. and serve DCU.

After that? Not too bothered.

Zebra3

1) MN.

2) Electrify Maynooth line. Even if it means just running a better service to Connolly.

1) Metro North
2) Dart Underground
3) M20
4) BRT, Bus Connects and upgrades to the 11 QBC's and other Bus related projects.

As an aside, second runway at Dublin Airport, but I leave that off my list as it is privately funded by the DAA, so would happen either way.

The order I expect they will actually happen in, with some obvious overlap in projects:

1) BRT, Bus Connects and upgrades to the 11 QBC's and other Bus related projects.
2) Metro North
3) M20
4) Dart Underground

Minderbinder

Praetorian wrote: »

On the Dublin Cork line what is stopping higher speeds than 100mph? If it was electrified could higher speed trains run on those 60 kg rails?

It would be exciting to have high speed trains linking the cities taking an hour but it couldn't happen on existing lines with all the towns along the way.

High speed non-stop trains between major cities would be the only saviour of Irish rail, but it's not going to happen without private backing, and even then i doubt if logistically it would be doable.

Minderbinder wrote: »

It would be exciting to have high speed trains linking the cities taking an hour but it couldn't happen on existing lines with all the towns along the way.

High speed non-stop trains between major cities would be the only saviour of Irish rail, but it's not going to happen without private backing, and even then i doubt if logistically it would be doable.

A new high speed rail between Cork and Belfast would cost in the region of 10 to 12 billion!

Unless Irelands population doubles or even triples, it will never happen.

marno21

Minderbinder wrote: »

It would be exciting to have high speed trains linking the cities taking an hour but it couldn't happen on existing lines with all the towns along the way.

High speed non-stop trains between major cities would be the only saviour of Irish rail, but it's not going to happen without private backing, and even then i doubt if logistically it would be doable.

A much better solution would be to NET improve journey times for passengers using the line.

Getting around Cork from Kent is a pain in the arse and Heuston is a badly located terminal stop for an intercity service (although Luas BXD will help things here). Mass transit for Cork, DART Underground, Metro North and improved bus services would be many, many times more effective at improving the Cork-Dublin rail experience.

billyduk

trellheim wrote: »

1. Nuclear power stations ( x2 , prob built by EDF )
2. Metro North
3. DU
4. M20 ( tolls at Croom and Blarney for vehicles )
5. Quad track from Connolly to Malahide
6. Tolls on cork south ring and the JLT
7. Tram system in Cork
8. Toll on M11/N11 end of M50

There would be a civil war if you forced commuters to go through 2 tolls twice a day in the suburbs.

A JLT toll is justifiable as its a vital piece of infrastructure with continued maintenance costs. Proceeds could also be used to pay for the Dunkettle Interchange over time. I couldn't see a toll being justified anywhere else on the N40 though... It would be overkill.

murphaph

I suspect we'll fail to get the EMA because of Dublin's poor infrastructure. Could have really helped offset some Brexit losses.

marno21

billyduk wrote: »

There would be a civil war if you forced commuters to go through 2 tolls twice a day in the suburbs.

A JLT toll is justifiable as its a vital piece of infrastructure with continued maintenance costs. Proceeds could also be used to pay for the Dunkettle Interchange over time. I couldn't see a toll being justified anywhere else on the N40 though... It would be overkill.

Cork drivers along their single decent road out of the city (out of seven national roads), the M8 have to pay 2 tolls to get to their destination, Dublin,

People who access the M8 from the N28, N27, N71 or N22 via the South Ring, would if a toll was placed on the South Ring, have to pay 3 tolls to get to Dublin. This compares with the people of Wexford and Wicklow, who have to pay 0 tolls, and the people of Waterford city who have to pay 0 tolls (I accept that people west of the Suir in Waterford have to pay a toll on the Waterford bypass).

This in addition to the fact that the N40 is a slow moving carpark at peak times.

Out of the question.

Sam Russell

There are three tolls in Dublin: East Link;, West link; and Port Tunnel. Plus they add up to the most expensive - the Port Tunnel is €10 or €3 depending on time of use. Dublin to Galway would be five tolls for me, if I used the most direct route avoiding the city centre.

There are two tolls on the M3 alone.

The Jack Lynch Tunnel was meant to be tolled, as was the Naas bypass. Never happened though.

Zebra3

The Lynch Tunnel being a classic case of stroke politics iirc.

road_high

Zebra3 wrote: »

The Lynch Tunnel being a classic case of stroke politics iirc.

How so? It was absolutely essential and I would even go so far as to say, inadequate now.

marno21

road_high wrote: »

How so? It was absolutely essential and I would even go so far as to say, inadequate now.

And it wasn't a tolling candidate due to the use of EU funds in its construction.

Hardly a vanity project given it's one of the most important stretches of road in Cork, and is significantly over capacity.

Irish_rat

Zebra3 wrote: »

The Lynch Tunnel being a classic case of stroke politics iirc.

Without the tunnel Cork city traffic would be at a standstill.

zetalambda

Zebra3 wrote: »

The Lynch Tunnel being a classic case of stroke politics iirc.

I think you're getting mixed up with the port tunnel. JLT carries more traffic on a busy day than the port tunnel does in a week.

Pablo Escobar

marno21 wrote: »

A much better solution would be to NET improve journey times for passengers using the line.

Getting around Cork from Kent is a pain in the arse and Heuston is a badly located terminal stop for an intercity service (although Luas BXD will help things here). Mass transit for Cork, DART Underground, Metro North and improved bus services would be many, many times more effective at improving the Cork-Dublin rail experience.

There's a new entrance under construction at the moment on the Horgan's Quay side. It includes an underground ticket hall too if I'm not mistaken. It should take away the hassle of exiting via the Lower Glanmire Road.

Zebra3 wrote: »

The Lynch Tunnel being a classic case of stroke politics iirc.

Im guessing you've never used the Jack Lynch Tunnel? It's completely overcapacity. In Cork, I'd never use it if it wasn't so essential due to it being such a disaster for traffic. Out of interest, why do you think it was a political move to build it?

Chuchote

A National Health system that would move all the fees currently being paid to insurers into a State system; good working conditions that would bring Irish doctors and nurses home to work in it (I'm glad to be treated by doctors and nurses from abroad, but it's insane that the State pays for educating people in medicine to go and work abroad - look at France where you must repay your State education by 10 years working in France)
Free education up to third level - with proper pay and conditions for university staff; no more of this business of paying post-docs as casuals
A headlong drive for jobs and exports, especially in the tech and agrifood sectors
A countrywide and citywide network of cycleways - half of the journeys now driven in Ireland are under 2km, and getting people to get on their bikes for these journeys would have positive knock-on health effects -

https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/british-study-finds-commuting-bike-can-cut-heart-disease-and-cancer.html

A big British study, recently published, tracked a over a quarter of a million British commuters over five years and found significant reductions in deaths from Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) and found that deaths from cancer were halved. The summary, published in the BMJ (http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1456)
Cycle commuting was associated with a lower risk of CVD, cancer, and all cause mortality. Walking commuting was associated with a lower risk of CVD independent of major measured confounding factors. Initiatives to encourage and support active commuting could reduce risk of death and the burden of important chronic conditions.

(By the way, for the person who said Ireland was cold and rainy a couple of pages back, if you cycle you'll get wet on 4% of days in Ireland. And they have recently invented raincoats, which are quite useful.)

Most of the improvements in road networks called for in this thread would be unnecessary if all or even most of the short journeys were converted from car to bicycle.

An end to piping gas to private homes and businesses; instead gas would be used to power electricity, a safer and more efficient use
Gradual phasing out of onstreet parking, replacing this inefficient use of road space by driveway parking and city high-rise parking
Conversion to renewables - renewable energy is improving exponentially in efficiency; we could have thermal solar panels on every home for hot water; windmills are already increasing; the rich are putting in geothermal systems and we've scarcely touched tidal power at all

I like the idea of a system-built city - maybe model it on Paris, with wide streets with spacious five- to nine-storey apartment buildings, with apartments at least as big as current semi-Ds, and with many and varied and beautiful parks spread throughout the city for wildlive, green space and play space; I love the 'Ã©toiles' in Paris - junctions where several broad streets meet:

SeanW

Chuchote wrote: »

An end to piping gas to private homes and businesses; instead gas would be used to power electricity, a safer and more efficient use

Gradual phasing out of onstreet parking, replacing this inefficient use of road space by driveway parking and city high-rise parking

Conversion to renewables - renewable energy is improving exponentially in efficiency; we could have thermal solar panels on every home for hot water; windmills are already increasing; the rich are putting in geothermal systems and we've scarcely touched tidal power at all

So many problems here:

1) We already heavily dependent on gas for power generation. Most new plant has been gas for a long time.
2) Gas tends to contain radon, so burning it makes gas-fired power plants emit more radiation than a similar capacity nuclear power plant. Literally, if gas fired power plants were regulated for radiological emissions in the same way that nuclear power is, all the gas plants all over the world would fail that regulation and be shut down. Yet the environmental movement has no problem with this.
3) Burning gas at source (i.e. in a boiler to heat local radiators) is much more efficient than burning it far away to generate heat to turn a turbine, to generate power some of which is lost in transmission, to the end point of an electric radiator where most of the energy in the fuel is lost before it gets to heating the room. The same is true of oil and solid fuel.
4) Using gas anywhere has the opportunity cost of not using it somewhere else. Gas is one of the most flexible fuels that can be used to power electricity generation, but also to provide heating and cooking, also in transport you could have gas powered cars and trains. The same is true of oil, which is why oil fired power stations are rare these days. It's less true of coal and not true at all of uranium, which can only be used in power plants and some military vehicles like submarines and aircraft carriers. Thusly, using uranium in power plants make sense while fossil fuels should be limited to small-scale applications such as heating a single home, or powering a car or bus.
5) On street parking is "inefficient"? Who says so? The people who live on streets that need it? (Terraced houses and the like) The businesses who need loading zones outside their properties? Shoppers? I submit that your definition if "inefficient" does not gel with how people actually live their lives.
6) Renewables are garbage. Wind mills are monstrous, ugly and noisy. They are more dangerous to bats than White Nose Syndrome (which in itself is an extinction-level threat). They are also dangerously unstable as they produce power only when the wind is blowing not when electricity is required. They also guzzle subsidies and require EU mandates because they make no economic sense either. Also because they are so unstable they need highly flexible fossil fuel power plants to back them up. Only gas can do this at the moment but as above, that's ecologically questionable and presents a massive "opportunity cost".

Solar is a little bit better in that the placement of them is not an ecological disaster, but again, they produce power when the sun shines, not when needed. This has obvious implications for ... oh say ... the Irish winter, i.e. 9 months of the year. So it doesn't matter if the solar panels are free, unless you find a way to store power cheaply for winter they're always going to be useless.

billyduk

Zebra3 wrote: »

The Lynch Tunnel being a classic case of stroke politics iirc.

Stroke politics? Cork City would have ground to a halt long ago without it. It takes 68,000 vehicles away from the city centre every single day. Compare that to the Dublin Port Tunnel which cost 10 times as much, yet only takes 15,000 away from the City centre.

Zebra3

I'm not talking about the Lynch tunnel being built, but I was told that it was meant to be tolled, and before it opened there was a by-election.

It was never tolled as a result of by-election promises.

Only what I heard, and open to correction on that matter.