plodder wrote: » But, this idea that road tunnels are 20th century solutions is exactly the kind of ideology that leads to nothing getting built. And someone should tell the Swedes about it as well. They are spending over 3 billion euro on a massive system of tunnels to make a Western road bypass of Stockholm.
AAAAAAAAA wrote: » A huge amount of Swedes see this as a white elephant that will only increase car dependency. The problem is the road is something that was demanded by their now-defunct Vagverket (Roads Authority). Unfortunately Vagverket was an extremely narrow minded and car-focused agency, with the sort of mentality that every traffic problem can be fixed with more roads, in a "when your only tool is a hammer" sort of way.
plodder wrote: » I don't buy that. 3 billion euro projects don't get built unless there is significant public support for them.
AAAAAAAAA wrote: » https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debatten_om_F%C3%B6rbifart_Stockholm Fire up google translate and read away. There is a substantial number of state bodies, political parties and the public in general against it. I believe when polled less than 20% of people in Stockholm wanted it, I'll try and find the source to back myself up on that.
Eric Cartman wrote: » first im hearing of this eastern bypass, fantastic idea. We need to invest heavily in road based infrastructure projects to all ow more access for cars to and through the city, its a nightmare at present.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » So we need a €1bn port access road for the very few times our €0.5bn port access road is out of action? The think about the DPT being too low is pure horse****. It has a clearance of 4.65m, most of Europe restricts truck height to 4m:https://www.itf-oecd.org/node/19209 Our higher limit is so farmers can stack bails higher when transporting. The road network here, or any of Europe, wasn't designed for super trucks, we don't need or want them. 99.9% of freight comes in standard sizes. The DPT is more than big enough. The more people try to justify the Eastern Bypass, the more stupid it sounds.
SeanW wrote: » You can call it horse **** all you want, it does not change the fact that Ireland was using high vehicles before the DPT came on-scene. It's also very likely that as a result of the restrictions it caused, Ireland is now a special market that logistics companies require special trucks to serve unlike the UK. Your own link shows that the UK does not have a defined height limit. It is also a fact that "supercube" type trucks used in Ireland before the DPT were/are more efficient because they can carry more cubic/metres of goods per vehicle. It is also a fact that the DPT can never be retrofitted. In the future, it may be useful to allow supercubes again. In the future, it may be desirable to allow people to use an Eastern route around the city. In the future, you may have a very large number of people living in the Docklands with few options for driving out of the city. It may be desirable to allow buses to have an expressway into the City from the South, the way the DPT serves as a free expressway for buses into the City from the North. There may be any number of reasons why the Eastern Bypass may well be nice to have in the future. The only thing "stupid" is asserting that under no circumstances would it be useful.
Last Stop wrote: » Why are people still moaning about the height of the port tunnel. Even if taller trucks could use the port tunnel, they wouldn’t be able to use the Limerick tunnel or the Jack Lynch tunnel. Given the relatively small scale of trade in Ireland compared to other countries in the world, it’s not a big deal anyway.
Baseball72 wrote: » Not so. Port tunnel height restrictions has added to costs and carbon footprint increase. A significant percentage of cargo (FMCG sector) comes from GB in trailers. Much of it terminates within M50 Corridor so Limerick and Cork tunnels don't come into play. Effectively banning super cubes has added to the volume in trucks on the road, extra costs, higher carbon footprint and all so unnecessary.
SeanW wrote: » As Pete's link above shows, the United Kingdom does not have a set height limit for vehicles. As such, prior to the construction of the DPT, a logistics firms' truck fleet could be common to both the UK and Ireland without further qualification. At the time, both the UK and Ireland were members of the European Union but the laws banning supercubes made Ireland a special market with restrictions not in force in the UK.
SeanW wrote: » The UK places no restrictions so logistics operators in the UK can use whatever kind of truck they want. Ireland is a special case because of the DPT. There is no legal requirement to use the Jack Lynch Tunnel or the Limerick Tunnel (which was only built after the DPT anyway), those tunnels can be avoided if need be, but there is a legal requirement for trucks to use the Port Tunnel.
SeanW wrote: » You do realise the government is planning to ban all internal combustion engine cars, right?
SeanW wrote: » The issue of carbon emissions has been raised by others. I'm just highlighting that our gov has put a countdown on the use of Internal Combustion Engines - at least in cars. That's going to work against any argument "but, but, carbon emissions" because the Eastern Bypass won't be considered until at least 2030 nor be open before 2045. ICEs may still be allowed in trucks though, if so, it would be better to have fewer larger trucks than more smaller ones ...
SeanW wrote: » Umm ... it's not like every single truck is going to be a supercube ... it's just to give logistics other options.
It would almost certainly take a good deal of trucks off the existing M50.
SeanW wrote: » It's a question of flexibility. If a logistics company had a load of low-value, low-weight goods to send to Wicklow, using supercube trucks via a hypothetical Eastern bypass would probably be a good idea. A consignment of computer parts heading to Dundalk? Maybe not so much. And of course you have traffic between the Port and Sligo, Castlebar, Galway (N4) and Cork/Limerick (N7) in which case the distances are similar on the M50, so yes, in those cases, sending supercubes from the Port to those places would make sense too, in a lot of cases. Admittedly, a lot of this depends on how the EU and the UK work out Brexit, but there may still be efficiencies to be gained in having conditions in our market as similar as possible to UK conditions. That includes things like being able to use a common fleet of freight vehicles in both countries - which we cannot do now.
SeanW wrote: » To some extent that depends on the point where the Eastern Bypass would meet the existing M50. And yes, high vehicles should be an option for low weight bulk loads. Although I'm not an expert on UK logistics, I'm sure that they do use high vehicles, like we used to in this country. At any rate, I'm completely puzzled as to why there is so much resistance to the idea of Dublin having a ring road 50 years from now, it's somewhat bizarre.
