When will the penny drop that we cannot keep building large roads?

end of the road wrote: »

otherwise we are going to end up with so much motor way we won't be able to maintain it all and things get worse for everybody which is ridiculous.

Motorway surface once laid to standards with adequate drainage and in mild climates such as one experiences in Ireland need to be resurfaced every 25 or more years. the operators of PPP schemes in Ireland based their projections on not needing to renew road surfaces before the projects were handed back to the state.

BrokenArrows

Impressive public transport is the only way to reduce car usage.

Irelands public transport is shockingly bad, but thats because of our population.

People expect a country of 4.5 million to be able to provide good pubic transport and for those companies to still turn a profit. Its not going to happen.

The government need to accept that they need to improve transport links. Rail, Bus, Trams, even metro systems in places like dublin and also accept that its a loss making venture and not expect it to be profitable.

Its 2.5 hours from Galway to Dublin by train. Its 2-2.5 hours by car (while obeying the speed limits). I know which choice id make and that would be by car.

Deleted User wrote: »

You can't be argued with as you are wedded to your beliefs. You have an established pattern of following and proselytizing your beliefs rather than approaching discussions with fact based arguments.
The rest of us can see the huge utility that a good intercity road network delivers to the Citizens of a state in terms of safety, convenience and economic growth. The chargers that I charge at are powered by renewable electricity. I can't account for each individual electron that is stored in my battery as that is impossible but I assure you that the providers are providing electricity from renewable sources and my preference to consume electricity from renewable sources drives adoption of renewable energy in the national grid.
Modern cars are safer than ever. My car has lane keeping assist, adaptive cruise control, pedestrian collision avoidance systems to name but a few of a multitude of passive and active safety systems. It takes me where I wish to go hygienically in comfort, safety and in near silence while emitting no emissions.
Why would you seek to deny that to others by channeling investment to an inferior form of transport.

there is an inter city motorway network and then there is beyond an inter city motor way network which we have.
that costs money, and given road gets in real terms the majority of the transport funding and at quite a high percentage then it probably needs to, to say that cutting down usage of road to benefit those who have no option what soever to use it and so we can avoid giving more and more space over to it is absolutely quite right to be suggested.
otherwise we are going to end up with so much motor way we won't be able to maintain it all and things get worse for everybody which is ridiculous.
cutting road spend and investing in other more beneficial things is not denying anyone anything, the motor way network is in place and isn't going to be shut down and nor should it be. but if autonomous vehicles are so efficient as claimed, then the amount of space and thus investment won't need to be as much and there may be space available to give back to the people.

end of the road wrote: »

a "supperior" technology that requires a serious amount of space to cater to, requires a serious amount of cost, and which our dependence on is becoming unaffordible and unsustainable.

so i want us to cut our dependence on it a bit, cut what we spend on it, where possible look to take some of the space we are using to give over to other uses, if not now, then when the claimed efficiencies of autonomous vehicles are realized.

you might think it is powered using 100% renewable sources, but the reality is if you are connecting to the grid at any stage to charge it, then it's not ultimately 100% powered by renewable sources.
that's fine, but realistically it doesn't change the fact that cutting down road usage a bit remains a good idea, for cost and space reasons mainly.

You can't be argued with as you are wedded to your beliefs. You have an established pattern of following and proselytizing your beliefs rather than approaching discussions with fact based arguments.
The rest of us can see the huge utility that a good intercity road network delivers to the Citizens of a state in terms of safety, convenience and economic growth. The chargers that I charge at are powered by renewable electricity. I can't account for each individual electron that is stored in my battery as that is impossible but I assure you that the providers are providing electricity from renewable sources and my preference to consume electricity from renewable sources drives adoption of renewable energy in the national grid.
Modern cars are safer than ever. My car has lane keeping assist, adaptive cruise control, pedestrian collision avoidance systems to name but a few of a multitude of passive and active safety systems. It takes me where I wish to go hygienically in comfort, safety and in near silence while emitting no emissions.
Why would you seek to deny that to others by channeling investment to an inferior form of transport.

Deleted User wrote: »

It appears you wish to cripple a superior technology as you realise that rail can't compete on a level playing field. High speed rail is OK for you but constructing an environment in which vehicles can travel at higher speeds then reduce their speed once they reach urban areas and then deliver a final coup-de-grace of delivering the passenger to their own door is not desirable.

a "supperior" technology that requires a serious amount of space to cater to, requires a serious amount of cost, and which our dependence on is becoming unaffordible and unsustainable.
so i want us to cut our dependence on it a bit, cut what we spend on it, where possible look to take some of the space we are using to give over to other uses, if not now, then when the claimed efficiencies of autonomous vehicles are realized.
by the way, given i use it, it's not in my interest to cripple it, but the good news is that cutting speeds won't cripple it.

Deleted User wrote: »

My EV is powered entirely from electricity generated from renewable sources.
I feel you are using the environment as a spurious excuse to discount a superior method of transport.

you might think it is powered using 100% renewable sources, but the reality is if you are connecting to the grid at any stage to charge it, then it's not ultimately 100% powered by renewable sources.
that's fine, but realistically it doesn't change the fact that cutting down road usage a bit remains a good idea, for cost and space reasons mainly.

end of the road wrote: »

not to mention that they aren't green machines, as unless we power them with 100% clean energy which isn't possible to do, then they are simply transferring the polution elsewhere, but to a more concentrated area.

My EV is powered entirely from electricity generated from renewable sources.
I feel you are using the environment as a spurious excuse to discount a superior method of transport.

end of the road wrote: »

which could be an argument to cut the speed limits for cars to the same.
requires less over taking and less lanes as everyone is at the same speed anyway.

It appears you wish to cripple a superior technology as you realise that rail can't compete on a level playing field. High speed rail is OK for you but constructing an environment in which vehicles can travel at higher speeds then reduce their speed once they reach urban areas and then deliver a final coup-de-grace of delivering the passenger to their own door is not desirable.

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you expecting congestion on inter-urban multi-lane routes in sparsely populated Ireland?

if it's there now, it will be then as well, just a bit less perhapse.
if it's not there now, and would be less with autonomous vehicles, then it's an argument to take away some of that road space for other uses.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because lorries and coaches are limited to 100kmph.

which could be an argument to cut the speed limits for cars to the same.
requires less over taking and less lanes as everyone is at the same speed anyway.

Mayo_fan wrote: »

The next generation of Electric vehicles(cars and buses and even scooters) kills most of your arguments. Autonomous vehicles will make great and efficient use of these roads you object to and will be super safe.

So look at it that we are planning ahead and building the infrastructure for these green machines which aren’t far away. The heavy slow and inflexible train could again begin to become a dinosaur. If you want to go from Tralee to Dublin, don’t mind your 200kph train that departs from a station 100ks away, jump into your autonomous car set your destination, relax and using decent roads you get direct to your destination refreshed.

they don't actually kill any of their arguments at all, in fact they strengthen them in some sense.
the efficiency won't be enough such that we will be able to keep up the over dependence we have on road transport, not to mention that they aren't green machines, as unless we power them with 100% clean energy which isn't possible to do, then they are simply transferring the polution elsewhere, but to a more concentrated area.
certainly they will be far far better then diesel and petrol cars, but the fact remains that a more sustainable form of transport in the form of rail based solutions will be needed and electric and autonomous vehicles won't get us out of that reality, perhapse what they will do is allow some road space to be given over to things like cycling, or even green spaces.
it doesn't matter how good the car will get, rail based transport will be here to stay.

buffalo wrote: »

They can be overtaken with ease on these traffic-free roads, no?

A two lane road with traffic travelling in opposite directions doesn't allow safe travel at 120 or 130kmph (or higher) based on jurisdiction.

buffalo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because lorries and coaches are limited to 100kmph.

They can be overtaken with ease on these traffic-free roads, no?

buffalo wrote: »

If Ireland is so sparsely populated that there's no congestion on inter-urban routes, why do we need multi-lane roads?

Because lorries and coaches are limited to 100kmph.

buffalo

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you expecting congestion on inter-urban multi-lane routes in sparsely populated Ireland?

If Ireland is so sparsely populated that there's no congestion on inter-urban routes, why do we need multi-lane roads?

GT89 wrote: »

Electric cars are still cars. They still create congestion which trains and buses with proper bus priority measures do not suffer from. The same kind of backwards thinking was dominant in the 1950s.

Are you expecting congestion on inter-urban multi-lane routes in sparsely populated Ireland?

Mayo_fan wrote: »

The next generation of Electric vehicles(cars and buses and even scooters) kills most of your arguments. Autonomous vehicles will make great and efficient use of these roads you object to and will be super safe.

So look at it that we are planning ahead and building the infrastructure for these green machines which aren’t far away. The heavy slow and inflexible train could again begin to become a dinosaur. If you want to go from Tralee to Dublin, don’t mind your 200kph train that departs from a station 100ks away, jump into your autonomous car set your destination, relax and using decent roads you get direct to your destination refreshed.

Electric cars are still cars. They still create congestion which trains and buses with proper bus priority measures do not suffer from. The same kind of backwards thinking was dominant in the 1950s.

monument wrote: »

It seems the penny isn’t dropping with a lot of people that continuing to build an unsustainable transport system isn’t compatible with acting on climate change — car use alone amounts to ~13% of Ireland’s carbon emissions, then there’s build and maintenance, poor land use etc.

Meanwhile, it's said off-line and on boards.ie etc that anything to do with rail is a white elephant -- it's like an echo of that Sunday Independent article from before the Dart opened calling the Dart a white elephant and saying it would be cheaper to pay for taxis for everybody.

EDITED: I should stress that I think rail is only a part of the sustainable transport mix -- my point about is how jarring it is that people have no problem with laods of dual carriageways to towns start calling rail in city a white elephant.

The next generation of Electric vehicles(cars and buses and even scooters) kills most of your arguments. Autonomous vehicles will make great and efficient use of these roads you object to and will be super safe.

So look at it that we are planning ahead and building the infrastructure for these green machines which aren’t far away. The heavy slow and inflexible train could again begin to become a dinosaur. If you want to go from Tralee to Dublin, don’t mind your 200kph train that departs from a station 100ks away, jump into your autonomous car set your destination, relax and using decent roads you get direct to your destination refreshed.

cgcsb wrote: »

Remember, compared to Ireland these are basically second world countries.

Comedy Gold. Keep it up.

bk wrote:

Yes, I was thinking that or EV trains.

In the short term, it seems they will cascade existing Diesel trains from around Dublin to these other services as the new Dart+ trains arrive.

However in the long term, as those trains age and require replacement, they will then need to think about the next step.

Full electrification is one option. But as you say Hydrogen trains or Battery EV are also possibilities.

Overhead wires would be better than battery or hydrogen train. More power and no need. I'd say i will be long time before batteries capable of powering an eight car train will be developed and battery ranges for long distance intercity might be an issue too. Trains that can charge off OHLE would be good for example if Dublin to Cork was electrified trains could switch to battery mode if going to Tralee or Limerick for example.

Also considering most developed countries have overhead wires anyway EV rolling stock may be difficult to get and any EV trains aimed at the European Market would likely be targeted at rural services for example 1 or 2 car units. There are very few disadvantages to electrification bar the initial cost.

cgcsb wrote: »

Right, but the definition of 'high-speed rail' is 200km/h plus. It's not pie in the sky to say that Cork-Belfast should have 210-220km/h speeds by 2040, in fact it should be expected of any modern European state.

If that can be achieved with the existing alignment, without building new greenfield track and for a reasonable cost, I'd be completely supportive of that.

They are talking about ordering new Belfast Intercity trains and I wouldn't be surprised if they might be capable of that.

cgcsb wrote: »

With regard to high speed rail we're going to be left in the dust by smaller, more sparsely populated and poorer countries like Latvia by 2030, we need to be moving faster on these things if we've a hope of eventually reaching infrastructural parity with the mainland.

Rail Baltica connecting the capitals of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia (the 3 countries combined have 6 million people), €16bn, over 600km of track and a 250km/h speed. Similiar project for Ireland is really not pie in the sky or over ambitious. They're at detailed design stage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_Baltica

Cringe and then you have lost me again.

You are talking about a line that crosses 5 countries!

Warsaw on one end, Metro population 3m with Helsinki at the other end, population 1.5m, with Riga in the middle, population 1m and a couple of other 500k cities along the way. A line that is considered strategic due to connecting Finland to the EU.

It is nowhere near comparable to Ireland and really it shows why Ireland is so unsuited to highspeed rail. An isolated island, with only one 1m+ city.

If we had 16bn spare, it would be vastly better spent on building 5 Metro lines. Can you imagine how that would transform our cities.

And where is the demand for this service? As a Corkonian living in Dublin, I can certainly tell you it isn't there in Cork. Belfast only has a train every two hours and there isn't even enough demand for an air route between Cork, Dublin and Belfast. That is how low demand is.

It is complete nonsense, building true high speed rail in Ireland (separate line) would be a MASSIVE waste of money.

cgcsb wrote: »

Remember, compared to Ireland these are basically second world countries.

That is a pretty poor attitude!

By that definition we are a third world country. 1st world = NATO aligned, 2nd world = Soviet aligned, 3rd world - Neutral countries like Ireland, Switzerland, etc.

People from the Baltics hate being called 2nd world, as it reminds them of being trapped behind the iron curtain and the terrible things the soviets did to them. They feel the same way about being called this, as we do about being called British or the British Isles.

As for you throwing shade about these being "poorer countries", you might want to take a trip to them, it would be an eye opener for you.

These are very beautiful countries, with fantastic people, long, fantastic history, absolutely beautiful old historic cities and very quickly developing economies.

Dublin is a kip compared to Vilnius. Beautiful, historic old town and then the new city quarter with actual sky scrapers, unlike us!

In many ways they are far ahead of us, in terms of quality of life, infrastructure, etc. Even if they happen to be behind in terms of GDP and income.

These countries for centuries were part of a very rich and powerful empire that ruled much of Europe for centuries. They basically only got knocked back as a result of the two wars and subsequent 60 years of Soviet meddling.

I wouldn't be getting on my high horse about them being "poor" when we have only gotten sort of "wealthy" over the past 30 years and have non of the history and architecture they have.

Deleted User wrote: »

Belfast as a city has closer ties through Heritage to Glasgow and Edinburgh than it has to Cork.

wtf??

Deleted User wrote: »

The example given to justify billions of euro of infrastructural spend doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

again wtf??

Deleted User wrote: »

Putting a fleet of electric propeller commuter aircraft at Belfast City Airport when they become COMMERCIALLY viable would make sense.

and a third wtf??

cgcsb wrote: »

It's not pie in the sky to say that Cork-Belfast should have 210-220km/h speeds by 2040

Belfast as a city has closer ties through Heritage to Glasgow and Edinburgh than it has to Cork. The example given to justify billions of euro of infrastructural spend doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Putting a fleet of electric propeller commuter aircraft at Belfast City Airport when they become COMMERCIALLY viable would make sense.

Isambard wrote: »

High speed rail Dublin to Cork and Belfast can never happen because it implies non-stop.

No it doesn't. High-Speed = 200km/h +

bk wrote: »

Because true high speed rail is pie in the sky stuff and never going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

It is horrendously expensive with little demand for such a relatively small island.

Right, but the definition of 'high-speed rail' is 200km/h plus. It's not pie in the sky to say that Cork-Belfast should have 210-220km/h speeds by 2040, in fact it should be expected of any modern European state. Aim low and you get less, which is a standard Irish cultural attitude I suppose.

With regard to high speed rail we're going to be left in the dust by smaller, more sparsely populated and poorer countries like Latvia by 2030, we need to be moving faster on these things if we've a hope of eventually reaching infrastructural parity with the mainland.

Rail Baltica connecting the capitals of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia (the 3 countries combined have 6 million people), €16bn, over 600km of track and a 250km/h speed. Similiar project for Ireland is really not pie in the sky or over ambitious. They're at detailed design stage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_Baltica

Remember, compared to Ireland these are basically second world countries.

Pete_Cavan

cgcsb wrote: »

They also avoid mentioning the high speed rail study and instead refer to the electrification of Dub-Bel and Dub-Cork becoming a 'a high-quality InterCity spine'.

I'm pretty sure the references to high speed rail originally came from the agreement to get the parties at Stormont back together, and even that was just to consider it; just aspirational political waffle really. I assume IE have used different wording because they understand what high speed rail means and know that it is not realistic.

Isambard

High speed rail Dublin to Cork and Belfast can never happen because it implies non-stop and there simply aren't enough potential passengers for that and too many passengers from intermediate points who will be left with a worse service than they have now.

cgcsb wrote: »

They also avoid mentioning the high speed rail study and instead refer to the electrification of Dub-Bel and Dub-Cork becoming a 'a high-quality InterCity spine'. the improvements in the 2027 strategy are welcome but ultimately not nearly ambitious enough to see us to 2040 (or even to 2027, in my opinion). Most of what's described has been promised for about a decade or more now. Hopefully they'll focus on carrying this out now, rather than just writing more reports on it.

Because true high speed rail is pie in the sky stuff and never going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

It is horrendously expensive with little demand for such a relatively small island.

On the other hand this plans looks far more reasonable and doable. While they don't specify what speed improvements, they do say that there will be speed improvements and with the changes being made throughout the network, they could well be quiet significant.

I think this is a good, well grounded plan, that is achievable and something we might actually see happen. If they blabbered on about high speed rail, etc. I'd be far more dubious that it was "just writing more reports".

cgcsb wrote: »

I believe Germany is converting their lesser used diesel lines to hydrogen.

Yes, I was thinking that or EV trains.

In the short term, it seems they will cascade existing Diesel trains from around Dublin to these other services as the new Dart+ trains arrive.

However in the long term, as those trains age and require replacement, they will then need to think about the next step.

Full electrification is one option. But as you say Hydrogen trains or Battery EV are also possibilities.

GT89 wrote: »

I would also hope the entire hourly is eventually electrified. Generally on the continent any line that has an hourly service or better is electrified. In most European countries anything of any significance is electrified with diesel trains used exclusively on lightly used branch lines with low levels of service.

I believe Germany is converting their lesser used diesel lines to hydrogen.

I notice in that document they avoid mentioning specific journey time improvements on intercity, I guess because they failed to deliver on the last round.

They also avoid mentioning the high speed rail study and instead refer to the electrification of Dub-Bel and Dub-Cork becoming a 'a high-quality InterCity spine'. the improvements in the 2027 strategy are welcome but ultimately not nearly ambitious enough to see us to 2040 (or even to 2027, in my opinion). Most of what's described has been promised for about a decade or more now. Hopefully they'll focus on carrying this out now, rather than just writing more reports on it.

Particularly liked the increase of long distance commuters to every 20 mins at peak times. Also Dublin-Cork going to a half hourly frequency at peak with a reduced journey time is welcome. Although we were supposed to have a 2 hour journey by now as standard.

On the subject of rail journeys and carbon emissions, I wonder will the government now cease subsidising 1hr (plus min 2 hrs extra for security boarding and onward travel) flights from Dublin to Kerry when they've invested enough to slash Dub-Kerry rail journeys to under 3 hrs.

bk wrote: »

At a quick glance and without getting into the details, it looks pretty good. Exactly the type of development that the rail network needs and which can attract passengers out of their cars.

I would also hope the entire hourly is eventually electrified. Generally on the continent any line that has an hourly service or better is electrified. In most European countries anything of any significance is electrified with diesel trains used exclusively on lightly used branch lines with low levels of service.