M50 - Eastern Bypass

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.

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.

I don't doubt that lots of people don't want it. I remember making this point about the DPT at the time. When these things are being built there is nothing but negativity. Design problems, cost overruns and nothing positive to see for years into the future, and this project is massively bigger than the DPT, with an extraordinarily long timescale. It's a different story when they open though.

I'm not sure why we are arguing about this anyway. Our eastern bypass is not on the horizon or in any way a threat to other infrastructure projects in the pipeline.

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.

This seems very genuine.

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.

imagine you could run frequent buses via tunnel to docklands and onto the airport...

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.

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.

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.

I’m sorry I don’t believe that at all.
Do you have facts to back up the potential use of super cubes??

Plus why would goods terminating within the M50 use the tunnel? That’s what the permit system is there for?

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: »

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.

The port tunnel was opened in 2006, surely logistic companies have adapted by now. Plus, larger trucks can avoid the port tunnel though the permit system.

If you’re suggesting that the eastern bypass should have a higher limit to accommodate these trucks, well then you’re completely contradicting your justification for the eastern bypass which was to avoid trucks coming from the SE having to use the circular M50 route.

Would an eastern bypass tunnel which accommodates “super cubes” therefore not lead to increased congestion on the m50 as these trucks, which based on your reasoning are so popular in the UK, make their way to the rest of the country?

You do realise the government is planning to ban all internal combustion engine cars, right?

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: »

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 ...

So you’ve ignored my point that you’re contradicting your earlier argument that trucks from the SE have a circular route to the port via the M50 by advocating a higher limit on the eastern bypass which would create a circular route for super cubes travelling to efficiently anywhere but the SE??

SeanW wrote: »

Umm ... it's not like every single truck is going to be a supercube ... it's just to give logistics other options.

But if a large number of them are (which must be the case if you’re advocating a more expensive, by virtue of being a larger diameter, tunnel to accommodate them) then how can you say

It would almost certainly take a good deal of trucks off the existing M50.

Either these is not enough to justify a larger tunnel (which is my opinion) or there won’t be less trucks on the M50. It simply can’t be both.

Which brings me to my next question. If the main aim of the eastern bypass is to reduce congestion, then surely we should stick to the lower limit??

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.

2 things.

The distances are not similar, going via the eastern bypass to the N4 is going to be much longer than via the port tunnel.

Can you please stop saying that logistics companies can use a common fleet as if that it not possible now. We all know the UK do not ha e restrictions on heights but the majority of trucks are less than 4.65m anyway so it’s a non issue.

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.

Well it’s pretty obvious that it will join the M50 at junction 14 as there’s a reserved alignment between here and Booterstown. Anywhere else and you have a significantly longer tunnel.

Low weight bulk loads is a very specific and I would say niche category. In my mind, the justification for a higher tunnel would be the regular movement of heavy abnormal loads.

Again you’re making an assertion that we never had a height limit before the Port Tunnel. That’s not true. There was a lower limit in place until 2000. So for only 6 years, these super cubes could be used. Between 2006 and 2013 when the height limit was legally passed, logistic companies has more than sufficient time to adapt operations. https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/f1a097-maximum-vehicle-heights-to-change-on-november-1st/?referrer=/press-releases/2013/maximum-vehicle-heights-change-november-1st/.

I find it funny that you keep trying to justify the higher high as somewhat common in the UK (simply because they don’t have a legal limit) and now, you admit that you’re not a logistics expert and don’t have any form of data on they use of these trucks in the UK. It would appear that you are making the assumption that because there is no specific Limit in the UK that logistics companies have higher vehicles and that is unfounded.

I wouldn't say I’m opposed to the Eatern Bypass, I just don’t think it should be high up the agenda. The desire to have a full ring road is another red herring given Dublin’s coastal location. If Dublin was more central (like London, Madrid etc) then of course there would be a strong argument for a full ring but given the fact that you can travel from any direction in Ireland and not have to go inside the M50 to get to any other direction, I think we’re pretty good.

We should be looking at prioritising measures that would reduce the commuter element on the M50 allowing it to return to its original function as a bypass.
This would include metro west and new bridges between Lucan and Blanch.

In terms of the port area, a new tunnel under the Liffey at the port to reduce pressure on the Eastlink. I’d also like to see the removal of level crossings along the DART line and potentially raising the height of some of the low bridges around Beggers Bush which would improve HGV access.