Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dublin Eastern Bypass feasibility report

  • 20-03-2009 12:34am
    #1
    Chris_533976
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭


    This should rile this place up nicely. An entertaining thread awaits.
    Eastern Bypass Feasibility Study Report

    The Authority was charged by the Government with the task of carrying out a Feasibility Study in respect of a possible Eastern Bypass of Dublin.

    The attached document, issued in 2007, provides an examination of the feasibility of the project from a policy, economic, engineering and environmental perspective. It concludes that the scheme is technical feasible, strategically beneficial and economically viable, with the economic benefits of the project conservatively estimated at twice the cost.

    The report does, however, identify that this is an expensive scheme and the significance of this scale of investment in the current economic climate is fully recognised. As a consequence, the NRA recommended to Government that it would be premature at this stage to make a decision to proceed to construction.

    The NRA did recommend that development planning in Dublin does need to integrate the potential possibility of this scheme fully into that planning process. Significant proposals are emerging in the North Port area, the Poolbeg/Ringsend area and the Sandyford area, all of which need to have integrated transport and land use planning at the heart of their consideration. Not to integrate transport and land use planning fully in such processes risks repeating many of the planning errors of previous decades.

    While the NRA fully supports the view that public transport needs to be the primary transport mode for these development areas with diminished reliance upon car transport, it is nevertheless the case that a significant element of road provision will always be required for both public and private transport, and that the Eastern Bypass proposal appears to offer the appropriate means, and perhaps the only means, to service that need in these developing areas.

    The NRA proposed that the scheme should be further developed to the stage that all necessary investigative work (ground investigations, ecological assessments, archaeological assessments) have been completed and a final detailed proposal developed, inclusive of full public consultation on the proposals.

    Out of that work, which would take about three years, would emerge a completed design of a fully functioning route addressing all of the substantial engineering and ecological challenges. At that stage a fully informed decision could be made on whether or not to proceed with the scheme.

    Irrespective of the decision ultimately made, the key benefit of this approach is that an accurate and exact provision for the scheme could be integrated into the planning work of all agencies along the route. This would ensure that the scheme would remain protected and would be ready and available for implementation at any stage in the future, if required. In addition, it would prevent that new constraints from emerging that would render the project unavailable, or significantly increase its costs, in the future..

    Ancillary to the above key benefit is that fact that moving the project forward to the next stage now will ensure that the delivery timeline for the project would be reduced by three years if a decision is made to proceed with the construction of the scheme at a future point.

    Finally, it should be noted that the costs quoted in the report are based on price and cost levels in 2007. Since then land and construction costs have reduced and while this does not undermine any of the report’s analysis and conclusions, it does mean that the costs of the scheme are likely to be significantly lower and the benefit to cost ratio is likely to be further enhanced.

    http://www.nra.ie/News/NewsAnnouncements/htmltext,16121,en.html

    http://www.nra.ie/Publications/DownloadableDocumentation/PublicPrivatePartnership/file,16122,en.pdf

    These are really just ideas at the moment - the NRA seem to say in this report that although it shouldnt go ahead right now, it shouldnt go on the back-burner right now.
    Tagged:


Comments

  • #2
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Chris_533976 wrote: »
    This should rile this place up nicely. An entertaining thread awaits.



    http://www.nra.ie/News/NewsAnnouncements/htmltext,16121,en.html

    http://www.nra.ie/Publications/DownloadableDocumentation/PublicPrivatePartnership/file,16122,en.pdf

    These are really just ideas at the moment - the NRA seem to say in this report that although it shouldnt go ahead right now, it shouldnt go on the back-burner right now.

    Interesting read, thanks. I don't know if I agree with the logic regarding not having a full interchange at the N11. Their logic been to prevent people using the motorway to drive from Belfied to Bray. Of course one way to reduce such traffic would be to have a Toll on this section of the road.

    Anyways this is all a bit of a pipedream on the part of the NRA given the current financial climate.


  • #3
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    How many more times do we have to fight the Eastern Bypass? It has been voted down numerous times and it should now be consigned to the dustbin once and for all. :mad:


  • #4
    strassenwolf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 642 ✭✭✭strassenwolf


    The attached document, issued in 2007, provides an examination of the feasibility of the project from a policy, economic, engineering and environmental perspective. It concludes that the scheme is technical feasible, strategically beneficial and economically viable, with the economic benefits of the project conservatively estimated at twice the cost.
    So, it looks like reports on this project also envisage a bypass of the English language!

    Was that part of the original remit?


  • #5
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    How many more times do we have to fight the Eastern Bypass? It has been voted down numerous times and it should now be consigned to the dustbin once and for all. :mad:

    It is a vital piece of infastructure. You do realise that this would not only ease congestion in Dun loaighaaire, Sandyford, Ringsend, Stillorgan. It would ease congestion on the M50 and westlink and complete the full ring aorund the city.

    So if the Westlink closes, you have the eastern section still open and viable to move the traffic around the city. This city is still fairly inadequate in getting motor traffic moving. Cus if the M50 shuts down, so does the city.

    I'm a fan of public transport. But even in public transport cities such as Paris and London they have circulating motorways and tunnelss around the city to move motor traffic effieciently.


  • #6
    G_R
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,028 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    How many more times do we have to fight the Eastern Bypass? It has been voted down numerous times and it should now be consigned to the dustbin once and for all. :mad:

    because as mysterious said it is an important piece of infrastructure that needs to be built. And hopefully after the three years it will take to do the studies they mentioned public finances will be in better shape and they can move ahead with this project.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    mysterious wrote: »
    It is a vital piece of infastructure. You do realise that this would not only ease congestion in Dun loaighaaire, Sandyford, Ringsend, Stillorgan. It would ease congestion on the M50 and westlink and complete the full ring aorund the city.

    So if the Westlink closes, you have the eastern section still open and viable to move the traffic around the city. This city is still fairly inadequate in getting motor traffic moving. Cus if the M50 shuts down, so does the city.

    I'm a fan of public transport. But even in public transport cities such as Paris and London they have circulating motorways and tunnelss around the city to move motor traffic effieciently.

    both paris and london don't have sea in the way, better examples please.


  • #8
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    both paris and london don't have sea in the way, better examples please.

    London - M25, M1. two road tunnels under the Thames. A inner ring,

    Paris, - has three orbiftals, the inner ring is mostly tunnells. the third one is actually underconstruction. Paris has many motorways criss crossing vital transport and population points.

    Have you ever travelled:rolleyes:

    Seriously think before you denote something as fact.


  • #9
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    both paris and london don't have sea in the way, better examples please.

    If it's tunnelled it wont need to have a viaduct.

    Have you actually read the feasibiltiy report, do you know that there are many route options, and that the sea viaduct is the least likely option. It will be more than likely tunnelled under Sandymount. The idea of building a viaduct out at sea is just stupid.

    Tokyo is right on the sea? what is your point. That not have motorways because we are beside the sea. What kind of nonsense is this?


  • #10
    Zoney
    Registered Users Posts: 1,639 ✭✭✭Zoney


    Dublin is not remotely in the same league as London or Paris (Tokyo is even a league apart from them).

    The plan is, in short, a crazy piece of nonsense from the 70s or so (probably pre-oil crisis).

    Maybe we can worry about this after building the Metro, Interconnector, extending more Luas lines and having sufficient public transport to allow the introduction of a congestion charge in Dublin city centre and further pedestrianisation/bus only routes.


  • #11
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    Zoney wrote: »
    Dublin is not remotely in the same league as London or Paris (Tokyo is even a league apart from them).

    The plan is, in short, a crazy piece of nonsense from the 70s or so (probably pre-oil crisis).

    Maybe we can worry about this after building the Metro, Interconnector, extending more Luas lines and having sufficient public transport to allow the introduction of a congestion charge in Dublin city centre and further pedestrianisation/bus only routes.

    Madrid,
    Amsterdam
    Brussels
    Copenhagen Copenhage has a simalar population yet has two orbitals two city motorway and a tunnel going south to cross over to Sweeden
    Stockolm, a city of Islands has a very well connected motorway system.

    Even eastern cities such as Burcheresti, have amazing motorways running through them


    Seriously Zoney you shoulc check European cities on google earth, it would put our city to shame literally. We need public transport. But we need a motorway system to that in intergrated. We dependd so much on the M50 t0 get around the city. If there is a crash, it clogs up and clogs up all motor traffic throughout the city. Because we don't have a proper intergrated road system. Since Dublin is like most European cities with narrow streets, we do need a proper motorway network to get cars moving aaround the city or through the city without clogging up the marrow streets.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Zoney
    Registered Users Posts: 1,639 ✭✭✭Zoney


    mysterious:

    They pay rather a lot of tax in Denmark! Not it would seem, an option here in Ireland, however much it would mean that overall we'd pay less than paying privately individually for things in dribs and drabs to make up for a lack of basic services and infrastructure (not to mention the inequitible nature of that - only those who can afford to do so can make such a "top up").


  • #13
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    mysterious wrote: »

    Tokyo is right on the sea? what is your point. That not have motorways because we are beside the sea. What kind of nonsense is this?

    now you're trying harder tokyo has sea, paris and london don't fact.


  • #14
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    now you're trying harder tokyo has sea, paris and london don't fact.

    Well it was you who made the redicoulous example of sea.

    Who questioned Paris or London was at sea.

    You do seem very lost on this topic... :D


  • #15
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    Have to agree with Zoney on this one. Not that I am particularly excited about the Interconnector but the Eastern Bypass is an environmental nightmare and belongs to the pre-oil shortage dustbin of the 1970s. Peak Oil hasn't gone away you know! Once China and India get back into full swing and oil prices start heading north again road projects like the Eastern Bypass will be seen to be the White Elephants that they are but will Ireland have dived into their construction by then? :(


  • #16
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    mysterious wrote: »
    Well it was you who made the redicoulous example of sea.

    Who questioned Paris or London was at sea.

    You do seem very lost on this topic... :D

    you gave the example of paris and london which are not comparable because they are not on the sea.

    anything with long tunnels is comparable.


  • #17
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    you gave the example of paris and london which are not comparable because they are not on the sea.

    anything with long tunnels is comparable.

    Sydney and thats off the top of my head. What the **** has sea got to do with the idea of planning a proper motorway infrastructure. If sea is an inhibitor for building an orbital, then I don't know what road should ever be built on coastal cities.

    Your points are really coming accross as inane to me and don't make much sense. London isn't far from sea either. about 25miles. Your point is?


  • #18
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    The real point is that this project should never be built, even if it only cost a cent, because it's hugely destructive to Dublin, will never make a meaningful contribution to reducing congestion, will be hugely harmful to trying to develop a decent public transport network, and if Dublin did need more capacity on its bypass routes it would be considerably cheaper and easier just to widen the M50 again.

    Can someone explain to me why this project needs to built?


  • #19
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Eastern Bypass needs to be knocked on the head, stat.

    1950s style motorway through quiet areas, bringing huge amounts of traffic to new parts of the city with insufficient distributor road networks to take them. Billions we can't afford - any billions we do have, should be spent on a metro we so, so badly need.

    Maybe when absolutely everything else is finished we can revisit, but I wouldn't support this going ahead until 2025 at least.


  • #20
    breadmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,608 ✭✭✭breadmonkey


    Has anyone who has conflicting reviews with the report actually read any of it or are they just going with their own preconceptions regardless?


  • #21
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    , even if it only cost a cent, because it's hugely destructive to Dublin, will never make a meaningful contribution to reducing congestion, will be hugely harmful to trying to develop a decent public transport network,
    Can someone explain to me why this project needs to built?


    I agree with everything you said but then you said this
    The real point is that this project should never be built

    Your defenition of a "real point" is? if you give a point, please back it up, your post is looking a bit frail in that regard

    And when you said this, you've clearly shown you don't understand how transportation works.
    and if Dublin did need more capacity on its bypass routes it would be considerably cheaper and easier just to widen the M50 again.

    It would actually be more expensive and time consuming to widen the M50 again. Dublin does need a full orbital. Widening this road, will still not make much difference to the east side of the city and make much benifet to the M50 other than having more running lanes.

    I'm a a fan of Public transport. But Dublin has an inaduquate road transport system. The city is built for car type transport I'm afraid, even though we have narrow streets. The density and sprawl is the type of city where cars are going to be used more often than other types of transport.

    Dublin cannot depend on one motorway to carry all motorway traffic and to say it will, is just stupid and retarded.

    Do you realise, that all the bridges will have to be knocked if the M50 was widened and you do realise the current chaos it will bring again, good god I think you should leave this topic alone, if you don't please research a bit more on this topic and read the feasbility report

    Don't be going saying there is no real point because. Back up with credible and proof.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,234 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    If it's going to be done, do it in a straight line bored tunnel from Sandyford to the port. Cut and cover where possible, if nessecary close the N11 half at a time and build the tunnel - it'll be worth 2/3 years' disruption. It's the most direct route and avoids an arcing route whose ordinary purpose s to anticipate expansion - but in this case that will never happen without reclaiming a massive load of land.


  • #23
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    mysterious wrote: »
    I agree with everything you said but then you said this


    Your defenition of a "real point" is? if you give a point, please back it up, your post is looking a bit frail in that regard

    And when you said this, you've clearly shown you don't understand how transportation works.



    It would actually be more expensive and time consuming to widen the M50 again. Dublin does need a full orbital. Widening this road, will still not make much difference to the east side of the city and make much benifet to the M50 other than having more running lanes.

    I'm a a fan of Public transport. But Dublin has an inaduquate road transport system. The city is built for car type transport I'm afraid, even though we have narrow streets. The density and sprawl is the type of city where cars are going to be used more often than other types of transport.

    Dublin cannot depend on one motorway to carry all motorway traffic and to say it will, is just stupid and retarded.

    Do you realise, that all the bridges will have to be knocked if the M50 was widened and you do realise the current chaos it will bring again, good god I think you should leave this topic alone, if you don't please research a bit more on this topic and read the feasbility report

    Don't be going saying there is no real point because. Back up with credible and proof.

    Of course it would be cheaper to widen the M50 again - just think about it for 5 minutes - the cost of new bridges and a bit of tarmac, vs. building either an enormous bridge or a very expensive tunnel. The current M50 widening costs 1billion, including 30 years of maintenance and financing the PPP. It will cost 4 billion for the tunnel. Do the sums.

    And Dublin does not need any more motorways. The local road network could not handle the traffic, and new motorways would have a hugely detrimental effect on commuting patterns and local congestion. Dublin does not need a ring motorway, and the widened M50 is adequate for the job. It does not need more motorways just because you say so.


  • #24
    breadmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,608 ✭✭✭breadmonkey


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    It does not need more motorways just because you say so.
    And it doesn't just because you say so? The whole point of commissioning this feasibility report is to get people who know what they're talking about to do some in depth analysis precisely so we don't have to rely on subjective conjecture.


  • #25
    Pisser Dignam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭Pisser Dignam


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    Of course it would be cheaper to widen the M50 again - just think about it for 5 minutes - the cost of new bridges and a bit of tarmac, vs. building either an enormous bridge or a very expensive tunnel. The current M50 widening costs 1billion, including 30 years of maintenance and financing the PPP. It will cost 4 billion for the tunnel. Do the sums.

    No. If there's one thing I don't want to think about, its another M50 upgrade.


  • #26
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    breadmonkey wrote: »
    And it doesn't just because you say so? The whole point of commissioning this feasibility report is to get people who know what they're talking about to do some in depth analysis precisely so we don't have to rely on subjective conjecture.

    This feasibility report has nothing to do with the need for such a monstrosity. It is purely concerned with the technical feasibility of constructing it.


  • #27
    leitrim lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭leitrim lad


    it will be on the long finger now anyways


  • #28
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    Of course it would be cheaper to widen the M50 again - just think about it for 5 minutes - the cost of new bridges and a bit of tarmac, vs. building either an enormous bridge or a very expensive tunnel. The current M50 widening costs 1billion, including 30 years of maintenance and financing the PPP. It will cost 4 billion for the tunnel. Do the sums.

    And Dublin does not need any more motorways. The local road network could not handle the traffic, and new motorways would have a hugely detrimental effect on commuting patterns and local congestion. Dublin does not need a ring motorway, and the widened M50 is adequate for the job. It does not need more motorways just because you say so.


    Okay it cost, 1 billion to do the current road project. right. I did the maths

    Adding one lane, resurfacing 4 lanes. And modifying road interchanges.

    New layout would ACTUALLY mean

    Adding one extra lane, resurfacing 5 lanes. So that would have cost overruns alone. Knocking all bridges on it's entire length including the new ones. Would cost at least a few hundred million, since you have to replace every single on of them, over moving traffic. Count the bridges from the M1 to Sandyford. At least 25 bridges. Right? Then you have to have greater traffic managment too which is going to cost phenomenal money, since you have to knock bridges. The New Redcow interchange will have to be modified since the old and new bridges are the same width and do not allow for widening. So the new slips will have to go. This is going to cost more money.

    It involves widening the Westlink bridge, this mean adding more decks and concrete to create a new bridge over this section, this is also going to cost money that is not under this current upgrade. Removing the loops on the Redow and N4 interchanges as the loops will not fit under bridges once you have 5 lanes each way

    You can forget about widening under the Blanchertown interchange. The roundabout has to be knocked, it cannot fit anymore lanes since it's an arch bridge. Cost of knocking, replacing and building a new interchange here would cost at least 130million alone.

    So count the amount of bridges you have to knock and manage 4 lanes of traffic while adding another each way while widening it.

    Seriously I do know what I'm talking about. The M50 can't be widened and the cost will be at least 3 billion,

    you have extra land take.
    Modifications of every upgraded interchange
    Tarmacing 5 lanes each way
    New signage and old signage has to go, since it's won't fit
    All old and new bridges currently have to be knocked
    Redcow, Blanchertowns, Palmerstown interchanges al have to go more serious modifications
    Greater traffic manegment
    New Westlink Bridge
    More Bridges to build
    Environmental impact would be astronomical
    The existing Railway and Nangor road underbridges has to be widened too This is serious work.


    These are all extra cost to a 1billion price figure. You do the maths now.


  • #29
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    This feasibility report has nothing to do with the need for such a monstrosity. It is purely concerned with the technical feasibility of constructing it.

    It's not a monstrosity. Look up that word in the dictionary please. The Tunnel doesn't come up on the dictionary.


  • #30
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    Of course it would be cheaper to widen the M50 again - just think about it for 5 minutes - the cost of new bridges and a bit of tarmac, vs. building either an enormous bridge or a very expensive tunnel. The current M50 widening costs 1billion, including 30 years of maintenance and financing the PPP. It will cost 4 billion for the tunnel. Do the sums.

    And Dublin does not need any more motorways. The local road network could not handle the traffic, . the widened M50 is adequate for the job. It does not need more motorways just because you say so.


    You don't know what your talking about, some of your points are coming across as a little retarded, why because there is no base to what your saying or holds any relevance at all. Sorry to say.

    You said this:rolleyes:
    and new motorways would have a hugely detrimental effect on commuting patterns and local congestion

    That is the most idotic thing ever seen on this forum and I'm one of the locals on this forum. It really is. Instead of making inane sweeping notions.

    Can you please back this up. This doesn't make any sense.
    Dublin does not need a ring motorway
    Or cus you say so?. Circular ring roads are very efficient in circulating traffic and keeping traffic moving around the city. It keeps suburban traffic, longdistance traffic facilitated to move around the city without going through the city. We don't have a through way system, we don't have motorways crossing our city, we don't even have a full orbital either. We rely on one motorway to carry all traffic, when a crash happens our whole network including the city comes to a complete standstill. This does not happen in other cities, because most cities have an integrated system, and has many feeder motorways to carry traffic in mulitple capacity.

    Every city has to have a motorway system, even the biggest public transport cities in the world has to have them.
    There are two types A through way system or a ring way system.

    Examples of a throughway system.
    Glasgow
    Belfast

    Examples of a ringway system
    Manchester
    Birmingham.

    A role model for Dublin, would be liverpool since its on the coast. It has a full ring but looks like a c ring since its bordered by the sea, but it has a tunnell leading onto Birkenhead and then goes onto feeding other motorways etc on the other side of the mersey river(whatever the river is called.


    You really don't know this topic at all, I'm afraid and to be quite blunt you really have no clue whatsover, here is proof.
    And Dublin does not need any more motorways. The local road network could not handle the traffic

    You said Dublin doesnt need more motorways, yet you said the local road network could not handle the traffic. So if the M50 closes tomorrow would the local traffic support it?

    That is again one of the most illogical thing\s I've ever read ever on this forum. It doesn't even make any sense.

    It does not need more motorways just because you say so

    I gave reasons, facts, evidence and valid points in my arguement. You didn't state any points to your claim. I don't think we should build motorways for the sake of it. Most people who know me on this forum knows that. Your not very familar on this topic so you don't know that either. I'm all for public transport, but there is a need to have motor traffic facilitated with an efficient road system to ease cross city traffic and ease the burden on the M50 also. The NRA clearly states that once the M50 is completed it will reach capacity. The surrounding roads were used as rat runs for thousands of commuters avoiding the M50 because it was so congestted. The Eastern ring would give Dublin it's other lung and circulate traffic aorund the city rather than clogging up the western section. The M50 cannot cope as the only motorway and only major road to carry all motor traffic in this city. It would be insane to think like that in any capacity or stretch of imagination.


    If your against something that is necessary you need to back up your argument, you havent done so whatsoever, infact you made claims and accusations that make no sense or relevance at al really.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    Ok, lets look at the numbers then. The current M50 widening is actually adding 2 lanes - the old setup was 2 lanes plus hard shoulder, the new setup will be 3 lanes plus auxiliary lane, plus hard shoulder. To get an idea of how much it will cost to add another lane, forget the 1 billion PPP cost of the existing widening. That 1billion covers the widening plus 30 years of maintenance, and all the large junction upgrades and will include 2 further resurfacings of the road in years to come. The capital cost of widening is much less.

    A very similar project across the water, where all bridges had to be knocked is the M1 widening project from London to Luton, widening from 3 lanes to 4. 10 miles of widening cost £300million http://www.cbrd.co.uk/futures/scheme.php?id=138. Construction and land costs are similar there to here, so the costs should be about the same. Since the whole M50 is about 30 miles, the cost would be £900 million to do a similar job on the M50. This is about €1 billion.

    But that's not really relevant. I drive on the M50 regularly at rush hour, and the parts where widening is finished move freely now. The bottlenecks are at Blanch and Ballymount where the road narrows. Once these are removed, the M50 will be perfectly sufficient for Dublins motorway needs for the time being.

    But the question I'm asking is - what journeys does this provide that aren't currently catered for? The only two I can see is going South to North via the port tunnel, which is catered for by the M50, or going from South to the city centre. A city centre we have spent 15 years trying to remove commuter traffic from. What is the compelling reason for this motorway? Whose lives will it improve? What strategic journeys will it allow?
    Because I can tell you what it will make worse - the people living next to it will be forced to deal with the traffic and community severance a large motorway brings. Dublin commuters will have to wait longer for good public transport, as funds are pumped into a road network that will always be inadequate for the demand. Or those of us that have to pay for this white elephant, which could easily buy, and take your pick:
    -A high capacity metro system for Dublin
    -The interconnector, plus electrification of commuter lines in Dublin, plus 4 tracking of the northern line, plus improvements to the Cork and Belfast lines to give travel times of <2hours and <1.5hours respectively, and proper suburban rail networks in Limerick and Galway with dual track to Limerick junction and Athenry.
    -Every other important road project in the state: the Cork Limerick motorway, the Limerick Galway motorway including Galway bypass, sorting out Newlands cross, and the Cork south ring road roundbouts, and building a bypass around New Ross, Enniscorthy, Adare, and improving the N24, N4, N17 and N25.

    Can you really say that this is a priority compared to the above projects?


  • #32
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    Ok, lets look at the numbers then. The current M50 widening is actually adding 2 lanes - the old setup was 2 lanes plus hard shoulder, the new setup will be 3 lanes plus auxiliary lane, plus hard shoulder. To get an idea of how much it will cost to add another lane, forget the 1 billion PPP cost of the existing widening. That 1billion covers the widening plus 30 years of maintenance, and all the large junction upgrades and will include 2 further resurfacings of the road in years to come. The capital cost of widening is much less.
    • Yes adding two lanes on a green wide median. Where are you going to put the traffic when widening the road further now? Where are you going to build, when there is no room currently to cater the current traffic that uses it.
    • Also, your going to have to take adjacent land off the verges, removed the Lighting, walls earth and siignage, thats going to cost money. You do know that there is solid rock at the N4 junction.
    • You now after a second upgrade would have to use far more tarmac, 10/2HS lanes for 30miles... That is alot more tarmac than this upgrade, alot more. and alot more than the M1 four lanes.
    • You also need to replace every bridge.. old and the current ones. the Redcow will cost how much to knock, after been upgraded already?
    A very similar project across the water, where all bridges had to be knocked is the M1 widening project from London to Luton, widening from 3 lanes to 4. 10 miles of widening cost £300million http://www.cbrd.co.uk/futures/scheme.php?id=138. Construction and land costs are similar there to here, so the costs should be about the same. Since the whole M50 is about 30 miles, the cost would be £900 million to do a similar job on the M50. This is about €1 billion.

    The land adjacent to the M50 is far more expensive than greenfield site along a long distance motorway that of the M1. The land cost would be higher here, and land cost around the M50 would be way higher. As it's built up on either side. Also that price is in pounds.

    So your quite wrong. You really have no idea, if the planners were clearly trying upgrade the M50 to it's maximum, they were stupid to build the new bridges the same width though, but it doesn't matter now, all bridges would have to be knocked. This would be astronomical in costs.
    But that's not really relevant. I drive on the M50 regularly at rush hour, and the parts where widening is finished move freely now. The bottlenecks are at Blanch and Ballymount where the road narrows. Once these are removed, the M50 will be perfectly sufficient for Dublins motorway needs for the time being.
    Well you brought up the topic of the M50, and now it's irrelevant.

    Do you read your own posts, ffs.:rolleyes: No it's not. The road will be at capactiy once finished. We were talking about the east cost of the city where the Port tunnel currently dumps at the Eastlink bridge. The latter of the route should finish on the southside.
    But the question I'm asking is - what journeys does this provide that aren't currently catered for? The only two I can see is going South to North via the port tunnel, which is catered for by the M50, or going from South to the city centre. A city centre we have spent 15 years trying to remove commuter traffic from. What is the compelling reason for this motorway? Whose lives will it improve? What strategic journeys will it allow?
    • Well for one it will complete the motorway ring.
    • It will allow to access points in the city. Port tunnell and Sandyford, at the moment all M50 traffic has to use the Port tunnel entrance,including traffic from the south and N7, it's a very unecessary drive.
    • It will relieve traffic in Ringsend, Stillorgan, South ciriculur roads, Sandyford, Dundrum and the coast road, wherre traffic is chronic.
    • It will also allow H.G.Vs have direct access to the port from the south and N11.
    • It would ease the N11 hugely.
    • It would give N7 traffic another alternatative to gain access to the south rather than entering the RI10 via Longmile and Walkinstown towards south Dublin.
    • It will give the M50 and the city a second lung, if the M50 goes to a complete standstill the eastlink can cater for the alternative traffic.
    Because I can tell you what it will make worse - the people living next to it will be forced to deal with the traffic and community severance a large motorway brings.

    BALONY. Next to it, I live near the Port tunnell. It has no effect WHATSOVER negatively, infact it has removed all the trucks and heavy traffic from the main road. It gives the local road back to the poeple of the area. Also the tunnel goes underground not over my house, as will the eastlink tunnel. What is your argument here? You are just talking pure nonsense. Trafific impact would be positive, so your again wrong with this argument.

    Other than completely bull****ting, have you any other valid point?

    With the traffic? You live in a city for god sake. Most of it is tunnelled, and the latter half is on a green field site going through Sandyford, this greenbelt is provided for this road.

    So again you don't have a clue of what your talking about. Did you read the feasbility report. No I guess not.:rolleyes:
    Dublin commuters will have to wait longer for good public transport, as funds are pumped into a road network that will always be inadequate for the demand. Or those of us that have to pay for this white elephant, which could easily buy, and take your pick:
    -A high capacity metro system for Dublin
    -The interconnector, plus electrification of commuter lines in Dublin, plus 4 tracking of the northern line, plus improvements to the Cork and Belfast lines to give travel times of <2hours and <1.5hours respectively, and proper suburban rail networks in Limerick and Galway with dual track to Limerick junction and Athenry.
    -Every other important road project in the state: the Cork Limerick motorway, the Limerick Galway motorway including Galway bypass, sorting out Newlands cross, and the Cork south ring road roundbouts, and building a bypass around New Ross, Enniscorthy, Adare, and improving the N24, N4, N17 and N25.

    Yet your post, show more idiocy and contradictory nonsense. You state we shouldn't build more roads such as the Eastlink , yet your up for building of more roads in the same paragraph.

    Clearly showing that you really don't have much clarity and points to anything.
    Can you really say that this is a priority compared to the above projects?

    It is a priority. It is a priority like the metro, I can think of many projects that are a lesser prority than the eastlink.

    Like the M3, the M9, the Tullamore bypass are just to name a few, but they went ahead regardless.

    You still haven't given any evidence why they shouldn't build this, other than your notions it will affect people. Do you live in D4 or something?


  • #33
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    I don't think adding another lane to the current M50 is a better solution than the Eastern Bypass: middle lane hogs are bad enough, without having to navigate a 4-lane highway.


  • #34
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    mysterious wrote: »
    Sydney and thats off the top of my head. What the **** has sea got to do with the idea of planning a proper motorway infrastructure. If sea is an inhibitor for building an orbital, then I don't know what road should ever be built on coastal cities.

    Your points are really coming accross as inane to me and don't make much sense. London isn't far from sea either. about 25miles. Your point is?

    london is not on the sea. dublin is, its insane not to recognise that,its a minor point but it is relevant, some cities have old coastal motorways we dont' some like tokyo build bridges and tunnels, the sea is very relevant to dublin. i simply asking for better examples then paris and london, i don't think that was such a big ask, why are you having a fit about it. dublin is zero miles form the sea.

    mysterious how many times are you going to call various posters "retarded" how about you calm down.


  • #35
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    mysterious wrote: »
    I agree with everything you said but then you said this


    Your defenition of a "real point" is? if you give a point, please back it up, your post is looking a bit frail in that regard

    And when you said this, you've clearly shown you don't understand how transportation works.



    It would actually be more expensive and time consuming to widen the M50 again. Dublin does need a full orbital. Widening this road, will still not make much difference to the east side of the city and make much benifet to the M50 other than having more running lanes.

    I'm a a fan of Public transport. But Dublin has an inaduquate road transport system. The city is built for car type transport I'm afraid, even though we have narrow streets. The density and sprawl is the type of city where cars are going to be used more often than other types of transport.

    Dublin cannot depend on one motorway to carry all motorway traffic and to say it will, is just stupid and retarded.

    Do you realise, that all the bridges will have to be knocked if the M50 was widened and you do realise the current chaos it will bring again, good god I think you should leave this topic alone, if you don't please research a bit more on this topic and read the feasbility report

    Don't be going saying there is no real point because. Back up with credible and proof.

    all that from the writer of this thread... Will we ever get a 8 lane highway http://ww.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054875131

    :rolleyes:


  • #36
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    all that from the writer of this thread... Will we ever get a 8 lane highway http://ww.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054875131

    :rolleyes:

    Hahaha I feel flattered that you had to go all the way back to 2006 and find something like that.

    Yeah it was a question I put out there, since we don't have a 4lane each way highway in this country. Belfast has a five lane highway. I never made a serious dicussion or made any real contender for one.

    Though the M50 redcow to Newlands should be at least 4 lanes each way.
    But since you had to drag a 3 year old thread, your obviously made an issue about it.

    ROFL....:P

    Go back to your argument of which city has a coast, and then which city does and wait which is in Dublins category, but now which has U ring or a C ring. etc. :D


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    london is not on the sea. dublin is, its insane not to recognise that,its a minor point but it is relevant, some cities have old coastal motorways we dont' some like tokyo build bridges and tunnels, the sea is very relevant to dublin. i simply asking for better examples then paris and london, i don't think that was such a big ask, why are you having a fit about it. dublin is zero miles form the sea.

    mysterious how many times are you going to call various posters "retarded" how about you calm down.

    Dublin is beside the sea WTF has this got to do with anything? We are talking about a tunnel here. The idea of a viaduct or causeway is just some stupid idea from some over imaginative person who put the idea of reclaiming land like the dutch do.

    I can tell you here and now. The causway out at sea is not going to happen. They are not going to reclaim the land. Sea levels are rising itw will have detremental effect to the environment, wildlife, the beaches scenery around Sandymount strand.

    I'm going to say it again, to all the people that have this sexual desire for reclaiming all this land out at sea. It's not going to happen.

    So please put this Dublin at sea argument at rest. We know already:rolleyes:


  • #38
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    mysterious wrote: »
    Dublin is beside the sea WTF has this got to do with anything? We are talking about a tunnel here. The idea of a viaduct or causeway is just some stupid idea from some over imaginative person who put the idea of reclaiming land like the dutch do.

    I can tell you here and now. The causway out at sea is not going to happen. They are not going to reclaim the land. Sea levels are rising itw will have detremental effect to the environment, wildlife, the beaches scenery around Sandymount strand.

    I'm going to say it again, to all the people that have this sexual desire for reclaiming all this land out at sea. It's not going to happen.

    So please put this Dublin at sea argument at rest. We know already:rolleyes:

    sexual desires for reclaiming land now is it. continue your rants


  • #39
    bill_ashmount
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,047 ✭✭✭bill_ashmount


    mysterious wrote: »
      It is a priority. It is a priority like the metro, I can think of many projects that are a lesser prority than the eastlink.

    Economist on Prime Time last night said no proper study has been conducted into the economic viability of the Metro. Was he lying or is there one?

    Why should this project go ahead?


  • #40
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Chill out folks.
    bill_ashmount wrote: »
    Economist on Prime Time last night said no proper study has been conducted into the economic viability of the Metro. Was he lying or is there one?

    Why should this project go ahead?
    The RPA will have had to provide the Departments of Transport and Finance with a business case, which will have included a cost:benefit study. I think the statement may have been disingenuous at best.


  • #41
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    sexual desires for reclaiming land now is it. continue your rants

    I backed up my arguments, I don't know what the hell are your trying to claim other than, bring up a 3 year old thread, waffle, your contradictory posts and you have proved you don't know what your talking about. I don't think anyone knows what your on about either.

    You started about coastal cities, and you got lost in that.

    Did you even read the feasibility report. Do you know anything about the scheme? The needs etc etc.?

    No you clearly haven't. BTW your above quote doesn't make any sense either. lol


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    bill_ashmount
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,047 ✭✭✭bill_ashmount


    Victor wrote: »

    The RPA will have had to provide the Departments of Transport and Finance with a business case, which will have included a cost:benefit study. I think the statement may have been disingenuous at best.

    Is this available to the public? I can't find anything online.

    Cheers


  • #43
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    mysterious wrote: »
    I backed up my arguments, I don't know what the hell are your trying to claim other than, bring up a 3 year old thread, waffle, your contradictory posts and you have proved you don't know what your talking about. I don't think anyone knows what your on about either.

    You started about coastal cities, and you got lost in that.

    Did you even read the feasibility report. Do you know anything about the scheme? The needs etc etc.?

    No you clearly haven't. BTW your above quote doesn't make any sense either. lol

    you still havn't calmed down, take victor's advice.

    i was quoting you

    i was making a simple request for provide examples of coastal cities you couldn't accept this, and cotinued ranting and calling everyone retarded perhaps you could apologise for that and we can move on.


  • #44
    mysterious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    you still havn't calmed down, take victor's advice.

    i was quoting you

    i was making a simple request for provide examples of coastal cities you couldn't accept this, and cotinued ranting and calling everyone retarded perhaps you could apologise for that and we can move on.

    I was pretty calm, I wasn't annoyed. I couldn't accept what? I'd prefer Victor to make the judgments.
    I'd prefer to stick to the topic aswell. Lostexpectation, you clearly were not making sense as you kept making constants assertions and avoiding the some truths here on the board, nor would you except any examples as I've shown you. You basically avoided my responses, On top of that you brang up old stuff on other threads that were dicussed three years ago. for what I don't know..

    I personally think you have only confused yourself here. I'm dicussing the Eastern bypass issue here, nothing else. I really don't know what your going on about. Nor do I think its worth going into any more.

    Anyway I hope this clarifies everything. Cus I'm done with it. P.S I thanked victor for his action.


Advertisement