M1/M4/M7 upgrades - new PPP?

Irish and Proud · 11-11-2009 12:30pm #1

Right guys - have to get this one off my chest...

...it is quite obvious that the M1 needs upgrading (to D3) from Turnapin (J1) to at least as far as Lissenhall (J4) if not Gormanston (J7). Also, I believe the M7 requires upgrading to D3 from Naas (J9) to the M9 split (J11), while there is a serious safety issue (AFAIK) on the N4 Downs DC concerning the at grade junctions and lack of H/S. An N4 upgrade could result in a reclassification of the N4 to as far as (and including) the Mullingar Bypass - then the M4 could be a motorway in its own right!

Now, is there any reason why these suggested schemes can't be packaged into a single PPP - similar to what is being done with the N7 Newlands Cross and N11 Arklow to Rathew (including MSA on M11 Gorey Bypass)?

Regards!

csd · 11-11-2009 1:06pm

I don't quite understand how these new PPP schemes work. Maybe someone more knowledgable might explain! (Sponge Bob?)

With tolled schemes it's easy enough. The private consortium builds the road and maintains it for 30 years. They get paid through tolls paid by the direct users of the road. No problems here.

So how do the non-tolled PPPs work? Shadow tolls? An agreed annual payment by the government to the PPP operator? Either sound strange, as it requires the DoT to make payments over a very long term to a private operator. I thought this was the sort of thing the Dept of Finance hated because it's committing to future expenditure in advance, effectively reducing the amount of money future governments might have to spend.

I remember the NRA were particularly pleased to be able to secure multi-year funding for some of the later MIU schemes, which gave them some certainty that funding wouldn't be slashed the following year, so could secure more favourable terms from contractors. However, it's one thing to commit to funding a three- or four-year project, but a 30-year commitment is a completely different animal. Have the DoF really sanctioned this? What criteria are the payments based on?

Any info appreciated.

/csd

KevR · 11-11-2009 2:04pm

Anyone else think the N/M4 should be D3M as far as Maynooth at least?

Irish and Proud · 11-11-2009 2:24pm

csd wrote: »

I don't quite understand how these new PPP schemes work. Maybe someone more knowledgable might explain! (Sponge Bob?)

With tolled schemes it's easy enough. The private consortium builds the road and maintains it for 30 years. They get paid through tolls paid by the direct users of the road. No problems here.

So how do the non-tolled PPPs work? Shadow tolls? An agreed annual payment by the government to the PPP operator? Either sound strange, as it requires the DoT to make payments over a very long term to a private operator. I thought this was the sort of thing the Dept of Finance hated because it's committing to future expenditure in advance, effectively reducing the amount of money future governments might have to spend.

I remember the NRA were particularly pleased to be able to secure multi-year funding for some of the later MIU schemes, which gave them some certainty that funding wouldn't be slashed the following year, so could secure more favourable terms from contractors. However, it's one thing to commit to funding a three- or four-year project, but a 30-year commitment is a completely different animal. Have the DoF really sanctioned this? What criteria are the payments based on?

Any info appreciated.

/csd

Shadow Tolls would probably be the nearest description of the newer PPP methods. What basically happens is that the NRA proposes a new road scheme, publishes an EIS/CPO, and buys the strip of land required (same way as for toll schemes). Once approved, the tendering process starts for a scheme where the successful consortium (financiers, builders, operators etc) agrees to fund the road upfront (less the CPO costs), design it (layout refinements, construction details etc), build it & maintain it for 30 years from the date of contract signature. In return, the consortium will get back double of what they've invested over 30 years (presumably base on today's prices). So let's take a €1bn scheme to crunch the numbers:

€1000m - Construction Cost (to the consortium).
€0074m - Annual Payment by NRA over 27 years (operational period under concession - allowing for 3 years construction).
€0100m - Increased annual tax revenues relating to scheme (operational period @10%).
€2000m - What the consortium gets for the 30 years.
€2700m - What the Revenue gets for the 27 years of operation.
€????m - What the Revenue gets in VAT receipts, Income Tax etc.
€0700m - Profit for the State over the 27 years of operation under concession.

Hope this helps!

Have to go now!

csd · 11-11-2009 2:54pm

Thanks Irish & Proud. I had an idea of how shadow tolling works, I'm just wondering where it has been stated that this is how the NRA intend to pay back the concessionaires. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I can't seem to find anything about this on the NRA website. Plenty of information about the schemes, but nothing on how the financing is supposed to work.

I would have thought a major change such as this (ie from direct tolls to shadow tolls) would have sparked a fairly lively debate. To use your example, you're effectively forcing not just the current Minister for Transport to pay €74m per year, but every following Minister (regardless of political party) for the next 30 years.

I think this form of PPP is probably a good idea for where we are now. The old arguments of "it's cheaper for a sovereign government to finance this" are probably moot now that we're almost broke. For the next few years I'd say it's better to have a more expensive road than no road at all, provided the CBA is significantly positive. At least then there's a possibility the increased direct cost can be offset by externalities (such as lower costs due to congestion).

/csd

serfboard · 11-11-2009 3:16pm

csd wrote: »

The old arguments of "it's cheaper for a sovereign government to finance this" are probably moot now that we're almost broke.

However, as Sponge Bob has pointed out before, the concessionaires will only get financing based on the ability of the sovereign government to pay the annual stipend. Therefore, their cost of finance will be tied to (or exactly the same as?) the cost of finance to the government, and which will be based on our rating.

So, if we are almost broke, then our rating reflects this, and our cost of borrowing goes up and therefore the cost of borrowing to the concessionaire goes up.

The only "benefit" that I can see is that it moves capital spending to current spending and brings down our debt-to-GDP/GNP ratio - at a continuing cost to future governments. (Mind you, we're very good at putting obligations on future governments - look at NAMA).

L1011 · 11-11-2009 3:32pm

the m4's traffic justifies d3 to at least celbridge if not maynooth - traffic falls off seriously beyond there.

csd · 11-11-2009 3:48pm

serfboard wrote: »

So, if we are almost broke, then our rating reflects this, and our cost of borrowing goes up and therefore the cost of borrowing to the concessionaire goes up.

This is true up to a point. It could be argued that if the concessionaire (or any parent company providing guarantees) is sufficiently large, the Irish element of risk would be diversified out by the parent company's exposure to other markets. This would, in theory, reduce the cost of financing.

The only "benefit" that I can see is that it moves capital spending to current spending and brings down our debt-to-GDP/GNP ratio - at a continuing cost to future governments. (Mind you, we're very good at putting obligations on future governments - look at NAMA).

Not forgetting the benefit of having something today that we otherwise wouldn't be able to afford for years. Sure, instant gratification isn't a rational reason, but the positive externalities that flow from having good infrastructure could be quite significant. I don't know if anyone has attempted to measure these in the context of a PPP financing deal, though.

/csd

murphaph · 11-11-2009 6:00pm

The money would be better spent ENFORCING road traffic legislation, ie, stay left unless overtaking! The capacity of the D3 Naas Road is destroyed with muppets who simply don't know how to, or don't care about driving on a multi lane road!

Chris_533976 · 11-11-2009 6:51pm

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Shadow Tolls would probably be the nearest description of the newer PPP methods. What basically happens is that the NRA proposes a new road scheme, publishes an EIS/CPO, and buys the strip of land required (same way as for toll schemes). Once approved, the tendering process starts for a scheme where the successful consortium (financiers, builders, operators etc) agrees to fund the road upfront (less the CPO costs), design it (layout refinements, construction details etc), build it & maintain it for 30 years from the date of contract signature. In return, the consortium will get back double of what they've invested over 30 years (presumably base on today's prices). So let's take a €1bn scheme to crunch the numbers:

€1000m - Construction Cost (to the consortium).
€0074m - Annual Payment by NRA over 27 years (operational period under concession - allowing for 3 years construction).
€0100m - Increased annual tax revenues relating to scheme (operational period @10%).
€2000m - What the consortium gets for the 30 years.
€2700m - What the Revenue gets for the 27 years of operation.
€????m - What the Revenue gets in VAT receipts, Income Tax etc.
€0700m - Profit for the State over the 27 years of operation under concession.

Hope this helps!

Have to go now!

Kind of I guess.

NRA/government buy the land.
Private company wins the tender, funds the road and builds it.
They have to look after it for 30-odd years.

They are paid back on an 'availability based payment scheme' by the government.

NRA have been clever though, and for example in the case of the M11/Newlands scheme have lumped in an MSA and that the private company have to maintain other roads too.

csd · 11-11-2009 7:30pm

Chris_533976 wrote: »

They are paid back on an 'availability based payment scheme' by the government.

Chris,

Are there any details of this 'availability based payment scheme'?

/csd

Heroditas · 11-11-2009 7:59pm

MYOB wrote: »

the m4's traffic justifies d3 to at least celbridge if not maynooth - traffic falls off seriously beyond there.

It is 3 lanes to Celbridge though - it just depends which exit you take for Celbridge.

However, I agree with three lanes to the west Leixlip/Celbridge exit.
I can't see it happening for another long while though.

Sponge Bob · 11-11-2009 9:25pm

csd wrote: »

I don't quite understand how these new PPP schemes work. Maybe someone more knowledgable might explain! (Sponge Bob?)

So how do the non-tolled PPPs work? Shadow tolls? An agreed annual payment by the government to the PPP operator? Either sound strange, as it requires the DoT to make payments over a very long term to a private operator. I thought this was the sort of thing the Dept of Finance hated because it's committing to future expenditure in advance, effectively reducing the amount of money future governments might have to spend.

Your understanding is the same as mine . As well as that the DoF is afraid of 'another' M3 where the payment is guaranteed by them, any traffic shortfall must be made up by the exchequer although that is the only PPP to date where that was part of the deal .

What criteria are the payments based on?

We do not really know and will not be told for quite some time . commercial yada yada . Furthermore the 2 schemes being haggled are

1. M17/M18 , a rural motorway with maybe 12k movements per day over its length

2. Newlands Cross , one of the main traffic hotspots in the country with nearer 100k movements per day and bundled with N.Arklow ...15k movements .

Chalk and cheese those two . Furthermore they are the first 'shadow' projects under negotiation and the first of any recession PPPs and the first after the Waterford Toll mini fiasco :rolleyes:

The third 'most likely' PPP is the Galway Bypass and every road in Galway City , east and west, has a traffic counter on it right now logging data .

My old contacts have all gone very schtumm for many months so I have no idea what Finance is thinking .

Chris_533976 · 11-11-2009 9:38pm

csd wrote: »

Chris,

Are there any details of this 'availability based payment scheme'?

/csd

Thats all I know and its taken from the official pre-tender documents, so god knows what it means :pac:

Chris_533976 · 11-11-2009 9:39pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The third 'most likely' PPP is the Galway Bypass and every road in Galway City , east and west, has a traffic counter on it right now logging data .

I passed over one of these for the last few days and was very tempted to reverse over it a few times

11-11-2009 9:49pm

Heroditas wrote: »

It is 3 lanes to Celbridge though - it just depends which exit you take for Celbridge.

However, I agree with three lanes to the west Leixlip/Celbridge exit.
I can't see it happening for another long while though.

I'd be tempted to say as far west as Kilcock, after that the traffic drops by about half.

It seems that about a quarter of the traffic turns off at each of the junctions as you go west.

Sponge Bob · 11-11-2009 10:17pm

These roads are not a priority when much of the Atlantic corridor is a lethal third world goat track which prevents safe efficient travel between many of the states regions .

I would countenance, nay MANDATE, these widening schemes in conjunction with a leinster orbital motorway post 2020 as there will have to be new junctions around Kilcock and a rebuild of the M9/M7 junction anyway .

We need Motorway of some sort...frequently only 2+2 like the section west of Kinnegad from

a) Sligo to Cork at a minimum and also
b) to Longford from Mullingar

The M1 M7 M4 may be slow at times and I am not arguing that but at least some half asleep **** in a truck will not kill you on the sharp corners .

csd · 12-11-2009 12:14am

Very interesting. So basically nobody outside a privileged inner circle knows the basis on which we the taxpayer will be in hock to the concessionaires over a period of decades?

Commercial sensitivity is all very well, but when we're talking about large sums of money over such a length of time, it's hard to believe that the public interest is best served by shrouding everything in secrecy. It seems to me that just this sort of climate fosters the sort of sweetheart deal the M3 concessionaires got.

/csd

Redsoxfan · 12-11-2009 10:13am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

These roads are not a priority when much of the Atlantic corridor is a lethal third world goat track which prevents safe efficient travel between many of the states regions .

I would countenance, nay MANDATE, these widening schemes in conjunction with a leinster orbital motorway post 2020 as there will have to be new junctions around Kilcock and a rebuild of the M9/M7 junction anyway .

We need Motorway of some sort...frequently only 2+2 like the section west of Kinnegad from

a) Sligo to Cork at a minimum and also
b) to Longford from Mullingar

The M1 M7 M4 may be slow at times and I am not arguing that but at least some half asleep **** in a truck will not kill you on the sharp corners .

Yeah-as someone who commutes to and from Maynooth I can see the need for 3 lanes (even if traffic still moves pretty well even when heavy-it mightn't be such an issue if people would drive in the left lane unless overtaking, but 3lanes won't solve that problem, right?), but would rather see any money allocated to the N/M4 spent on extending it rather than widening it at this stage.

westtip · 12-11-2009 10:41am

KevR wrote: »

Anyone else think the N/M4 should be D3M as far as Maynooth at least?

No - busy enough at peak times but I don't think the cost would justify it at the present time as per usual we could say it shoudl have been done at the outset - but I don't think it will be widened for some considerable time and I don't think it will get on the radar screen as a project when so many other really bad problems exist on other national routes - and in particular on the very dangerous routes which need attention to save lives. If you are commuting in and out of a city or in the environs of a built up urban area - delays on arterial routes are part of life and have to be built into your timetable - just compare it to how the roads were 5 10 15 and even god forbid 20 years ago. Despite all our woes and griefs things have moved on a lot. Mind ok so we're broke and all worried about our jobs the budget and how to pay the mortgage etc. But the DC from the M50 to Maynooth is not going to be widened for many years to come

Sponge Bob · 12-11-2009 11:02am

Couple of other points to note as well.

1. Metro North will come with a park and ride in Lissenhall which will reduce M1 traffic south of there .

2. Many of these 'near Dublin' motorways are wide median which makes widening easier in one way as the land take would be much less significant . Overbridges would need replacing on the M7 and M4 but that could be done progressively over time in a lot of cases .

3. If the traffic is heavy for two hours twice a day (at peaks) then there is no point in widening at all . That is NORMAL. It is only where the peak goes on all day and is particularly dire/crawling in the 7-9 am and 5-7 pm slots that the road is evidently congested .

4. Gantry cameras ( both directions) to catch and fine fast lane hoggers along these stretches would be a great help anyway .

5. Does anybody know if the M4 liffey bridge just west of the Spa has the foundations in place for extra lanes since it was buiilt 15 years ago...coz if not

It has been thought of on the M1 estuary bridge north of the airport , thankfully . See here p7

The change from the two to three lane configuration in the future will be achieved by reducing the width of the raised median and adjusting the shoulder and lane positions.

Zoney · 12-11-2009 11:42am

SpongeBob:

Still, surely in ideal circumstances, one would set wheels in motion for an upgrade once things got to the point of congestion 2x a day, in preparation for worse congestion? Even with the length of time the project would take, things would be worse just before completion.

Surely we are only about 2 years away from more persistent congestion on the M7 for example, particularly with the M9 opening (which seems likely to produce a serious traffic jump, even in the current circumstances, just because the old road was bad enough to dissuade travel/commerce).

However, I'd agree with the theory that some regional projects need to come first at this stage, with Dublin interurban focus for so many years. M20 is needed for example, as the traffic jams at Mallow are getting worse and worse and people are still dying along the bad parts of the N20. (Indeed I'd argue it should happen before the Gort-Athenry M18 - although Ennis-Gort indeed was probably worse situation than N20).

Sponge Bob · 12-11-2009 12:34pm

Nobody dies in slow traffic ...or is badly smashed up . On bad roads , however.

October 2008

October 2009

Furthermore the Cork Limerick Goat Track ALONE has killed more people in the past 10 years than ALL of the M1 / M7 and M4 stretches mentioned in this thread.

http://corkpolitics.ie/wp/?page_id=2224

Figures from then Road Safety Authority confirm just how dangerous the road is. The latest statistics available cover the period from 1997 to 2007. During that time there have been 42 fatalities on the N20, an average of 4.2 fatalities every year. In the same period there have been 74 accidents classified as serious resulting in 114 people sustaining serious injuries. A further 326 accidents described as minor were also recorded. Already in 2009 three people have lost their lives on the N20.

Taking those stats and adding accident real cost estimates from page 72 of 74 the DO NOTHING cost of the N20 alone , per ANNUM , is

1. Deaths = 4.2 x €2.29 m or €9.6m a year
2. Serious Injuries = 11.4 x €305k or €3.5m a year
3. Minor Injuries = €1m ish per annum

€14m per annum in misery and waste inflicted by that ****heap of a road , €114m every 10 years . Mind you that's what ye get in Munster for electing muppets I suppose

westtip · 14-11-2009 3:01am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Nobody dies in slow traffic ...or is badly smashed up . On bad roads , however.

October 2008

October 2009

Furthermore the Cork Limerick Goat Track ALONE has killed more people in the past 10 years than ALL of the M1 / M7 and M4 stretches mentioned in this thread.

http://corkpolitics.ie/wp/?page_id=2224

Taking those stats and adding accident real cost estimates from page 72 of 74 the DO NOTHING cost of the N20 alone , per ANNUM , is

1. Deaths = 4.2 x €2.29 m or €9.6m a year
2. Serious Injuries = 11.4 x €305k or €3.5m a year
3. Minor Injuries = €1m ish per annum

€14m per annum in misery and waste inflicted by that ****heap of a road , €114m every 10 years . Mind you that's what ye get in Munster for electing muppets I suppose

A sad and very true post. the N20 is the proverbial death trap, upgrading this will be way ahead of widening the M4 just outside Dublin.

L1011 · 14-11-2009 3:39am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

2. Many of these 'near Dublin' motorways are wide median which makes widening easier in one way as the land take would be much less significant . Overbridges would need replacing on the M7 and M4 but that could be done progressively over time in a lot of cases .

None the M4 nor M7 overbridges need replacement if we have discontinuous H/S under them. Most of them could accommodate a narrow median D3M with H/S anyway. Only one bridge on the Naas + Newbridge bypassess looks tight to me.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

5. Does anybody know if the M4 liffey bridge just west of the Spa has the foundations in place for extra lanes since it was buiilt 15 years ago...coz if not It has been thought of on the M1 estuary bridge north of the airport , thankfully . See here p7

It has no space for an extra lane in the median (unlike the estuary bridge). However unlike the estuary bridge it has a full width H/S - again, it can take D3M with a discontinuous H/S

Getting a D3M thats been widened from a D2M in its median under bridges / over bridges designed for D2M does require flaring the carriageways, but seeing as this has been deemed acceptable for the M11 and M8, there can't be anything stopping it elsewhere.

mysterious · 15-11-2009 3:38am

MYOB wrote: »

None the M4 nor M7 overbridges need replacement if we have discontinuous H/S under them. Most of them could accommodate a narrow median D3M with H/S anyway. Only one bridge on the Naas + Newbridge bypassess looks tight to me.

The Naas bypass bridges are better off gone. They need cleaning up and refurbishment. I don't see the logic or how anyone in their right mind would want to keep those bridges with traffic levels already surpassing 65,000 cars a day. There is to many bridges there, and just widening the road to accomadate old ugly bridges, is nothing but laziness. The cross section width of the Naas bypass should be DM4 width if it ever needed to be widened. There is not enough room for D3M either, only on one side. The median is narrower on the SB side by a good margin. The existing barriers take a lot of space on the median to protect the bridge structures, as the bridges are not exactly newish. The left pillars are right up to the HS. I just think it ludricous, to put all the effort into upgrading this road with extra lanes while saving these bridges.

I like jobs done right.

Thank god I'm not pure Irish, I would go nuts. With the ah sure it's grand. It's why we always have reckless planning in this country. I'm sick of this nonsense. Ah sure it's grand like... feck it.

Getting a D3M thats been widened from a D2M in its median under bridges / over bridges designed for D2M does require flaring the carriageways, but seeing as this has been deemed acceptable for the M11 and M8, there can't be anything stopping it elsewhere.

I tell you what we do require, Irish people should have an eleventh commandment, I must not procastinate and be lazy about things.

netwhizkid · 15-11-2009 3:56am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

These roads are not a priority when much of the Atlantic corridor is a lethal third world goat track which prevents safe efficient travel between many of the states regions .

I would countenance, nay MANDATE, these widening schemes in conjunction with a leinster orbital motorway post 2020 as there will have to be new junctions around Kilcock and a rebuild of the M9/M7 junction anyway .

We need Motorway of some sort...frequently only 2+2 like the section west of Kinnegad from

a) Sligo to Cork at a minimum and also
b) to Longford from Mullingar

The M1 M7 M4 may be slow at times and I am not arguing that but at least some half asleep **** in a truck will not kill you on the sharp corners .

Totally agree sponge, I am after an 8hrs drive from Fermanagh to Kerry that consisted of: Enniskillen > Cavan > Granard > Athlone > Ferbane > Borrisokane > Nenagh > Limerick > Abbeyfeale > CastleIsland > Killarney, my average speed was between 45 to 48mph and I had to take a one hour break mid point in Co. Longford as it was just so wrecking. Quite alot of the journey was Regional roads and National Secondary roads most of which have okayish surfaces but are diabolically twisty meaning any soft of speed is impossible.

They should cut a Motorway from Cork, with a spur to Kerry straight up through the midlands all the way to the North as far as Derry with a spur into Donegal also. A few short spurs here and there off it into adjoining counties and Ireland would be perfectly linked up. We need to shift the Motorway focus away from the Mentality of "all roads lead to Dublin" and give regional Motorway construction priority. It makes good economic, infrastructural and environmental sense. Motorways are the most efficient form of road transport and long after the Co2 emmiting internal combustion engine is gone Motorways will exist.

3,000 or 4,000 kilometres of Motorway extra are all that is needed and all National Primary routes should be Motorways and important National Secondary Roads and Regional roads that act as gateways between the regions eg. the Nenagh > Borrisokane > Cloghan > Ferbane > Athlone Road, I once got caught and drove to Birr by mistake on this road and the Borrisokane - Birr road is one of the worst in Ireland for the backbone between Munster and the Midlands and NI.

What Ireland needs now badly is financial stimulus package and building such roads would provide lots of employment both in their construction and in the business linkups between the regions, eg. I wasn't up North since 2000 until today but already plan to go up again in 2 weeks, I will however fly to Derry via Dublin next time and hire a car as driving up from Kerry is too much of a pain as driving through the midlands is a disgrace.

The economic benefits of a Motorway would be massive and how can we expect Ireland to come out of this recession when it is so hard to do business in our own Island even when no place is more than 300miles for anywhere else and nowhere should be more than 4.5 to 5 hrs drive.

We need to take An Autobahn approach and build straight motorways across the map with at least a 100mph speed limit on super motorways not the Poundshop jobs like the M8 or M7 where a tractor is as likely as a car to frequent the road.

mysterious · 15-11-2009 4:33am

I would like the focus of roads onto the

1. M20/M21 (Adare bypass)

2.The Birr bypass and 2+2 upgrade to Tullamore.

3. Newlands Cross upgrade D4.

4. M18 (gort to Tuam)

5. N62 Thurles/Roscrea bypass

6. Drogheda to Navan ORR phase 1. (replacing the N51) the N33 bypass should link with the Ardee N52 as the new N52.

7. NCW/Abbeyfeale

8. Longford N5 extension.

9. M11 gap

10. M7 D3M to M7/M9.

These are the 10 lists I would have for preferences.

I strongly would like focus onto the Atlantic corridor focus linking the towns and cities together and not all Dubln Focus.

murphaph · 15-11-2009 11:27am

The regions all want to be connected to Dublin first guys. If there was no motorways at all and you suggested starting with Cork-Limerick or Galway-Sligo the residents of these places would go nuts.

It was ALWAYS the case that the regional towns and cities would be connected first and foremost to their capital city and principal port on the island, and then to each other.

Zoney · 15-11-2009 12:10pm

murphaph:

The interurbans to Dublin were supposed to have been finished by 2006 - that was what was repeatedly promised until it was too obvious to voters that that wasn't going to happen.

This could have been done if they had allowed foreign companies to build large sections of the motorways, instead of doing things in dribs and drabs at the beginning while waiting for Irish companies to gear up (and have unsustainable local numbers in construction).

By finishing the interurbans by 2006 we could have had N11, M18, M17, M20 nearing completion now.

And quite frankly yes I do think things would have been different had someone else been in power. We were only set up for the dot-com era due to the policies of the mid 90s which wasn't FF's doing, and maybe someone else would have tried a similar re-orientating of our economy in the early 2000s once dot-com burst instead of deliberately fostering a property boom.

Sponge Bob · 15-11-2009 12:16pm

I would well believe the 8 hours Netwhiz, ya won't be in a hurry to do that again

Galway - Belfast has been near enough 5 hours for years either via

Galway - Ahhloaane - Cavan Monaghan - Armagh - M1 ( that will c.4 hours with the M6 )

Galway - Sligo - Enniskillen - M1

By next year in winter and rain it will have to be Galway - M50 ( 1:45) and M50 - Belfast (1:45 hours) along with 4 tolls ....unless I want to prematurely age myself . Against the tolls I factor out a pit stop I do not have to make because I am knackered.

Funnelling every long distance journey between all main cities ultimately on to the M50 is daft but that is what we have done to ourselves . I would chance the goat tracks in summer

L1011 · 15-11-2009 1:22pm

mysterious wrote: »

The Naas bypass bridges are better off gone. They need cleaning up and refurbishment. I don't see the logic or how anyone in their right mind would want to keep those bridges with traffic levels already surpassing 65,000 cars a day. There is to many bridges there, and just widening the road to accomadate old ugly bridges, is nothing but laziness. The cross section width of the Naas bypass should be DM4 width if it ever needed to be widened. There is not enough room for D3M either, only on one side. The median is narrower on the SB side by a good margin. The existing barriers take a lot of space on the median to protect the bridge structures, as the bridges are not exactly newish. The left pillars are right up to the HS. I just think it ludricous, to put all the effort into upgrading this road with extra lanes while saving these bridges.

I like jobs done right.

Thank god I'm not pure Irish, I would go nuts. With the ah sure it's grand. It's why we always have reckless planning in this country. I'm sick of this nonsense. Ah sure it's grand like... feck it.

I tell you what we do require, Irish people should have an eleventh commandment, I must not procastinate and be lazy about things.

You are confusing "laziness" with "sense" here. Replacing overbridges is amazingly disruptive and hugely, hugely expensive. Each bridge costs hundreds of thousands.

You need to either re-align the road passing over the bridge to a new alignment or close it for a period of months.

Also, a bridge needing a clean is NOT a reason to replace it! :rolleyes:

Tech3 · 15-11-2009 1:52pm

netwhizkid wrote: »

Totally agree sponge, I am after an 8hrs drive from Fermanagh to Kerry that consisted of: Enniskillen > Cavan > Granard > Athlone > Ferbane > Borrisokane > Nenagh > Limerick > Abbeyfeale > CastleIsland > Killarney, my average speed was between 45 to 48mph and I had to take a one hour break mid point in Co. Longford as it was just so wrecking. Quite alot of the journey was Regional roads and National Secondary roads most of which have okayish surfaces but are diabolically twisty meaning any soft of speed is impossible.

In fairness you took a bad route there. If you came to Kerry via Sligo(N16) it would have made an easier drive. The N17/N18/N21 while poor is superior to the twisty national secondary routes through the midlands.

netwhizkid · 15-11-2009 2:45pm

tech2 wrote: »

In fairness you took a bad route there. If you came to Kerry via Sligo(N16) it would have made an easier drive. The N17/N18/N21 while poor is superior to the twisty national secondary routes through the midlands.

Completely agree but have relations in Longford so part of the journey involved an hour stop there (which wasn't included in the timing). Add to it the misery of driving an older van which struggles to over 60mph and it was like travelling by steam train.

murphaph · 15-11-2009 6:49pm

Zoney wrote: »

murphaph:

The interurbans to Dublin were supposed to have been finished by 2006 - that was what was repeatedly promised until it was too obvious to voters that that wasn't going to happen.

This could have been done if they had allowed foreign companies to build large sections of the motorways, instead of doing things in dribs and drabs at the beginning while waiting for Irish companies to gear up (and have unsustainable local numbers in construction).

By finishing the interurbans by 2006 we could have had N11, M18, M17, M20 nearing completion now.

And quite frankly yes I do think things would have been different had someone else been in power. We were only set up for the dot-com era due to the policies of the mid 90s which wasn't FF's doing, and maybe someone else would have tried a similar re-orientating of our economy in the early 2000s once dot-com burst instead of deliberately fostering a property boom.

I agree with all that, it is still the case that the routes to Dublin were the priorities for the regions. The way it's spun on here it sounds as though it was Dublin's choice to connect itself with the regions when it was actually the other way around.

mysterious · 16-11-2009 3:07am

MYOB wrote: »

You are confusing "laziness" with "sense" here. Replacing overbridges is amazingly disruptive and hugely, hugely expensive. Each bridge costs hundreds of thousands.

You need to either re-align the road passing over the bridge to a new alignment or close it for a period of months.

Also, a bridge needing a clean is NOT a reason to replace it! :rolleyes:

They recently knocked a few bridges on the M2 near belfast for widening. Hey they didn't do it the lazy way. And 65,000 vehicles passed under this bridge reconstruction!

Shocking really.

The bridges need more than a clean. They are rusting and old. The median has no room because of the extra support barriers to make sure the pillars don't get hit.

mysterious · 16-11-2009 3:14am

I'm in favour of a N52ish ORR hybridization plan instead of widening all the motorways near Dublin.

The only one that needs urgent widening is the M7/M9 to Naas atm.

The first phase of ORR should replace the N51 from Navan to Drogheda.

Phase 2 should be upgrading Delvin to Mullingar to 2+2(worst stretch of N52) For Dundalk and Northern travellers should then use the a new N52 bypass of Ardee and join the N33.

Phase 3 Tuallmore to Birr HQDC.

Birr (N52-N62, combination of upgrades and 2+2.

Phase 4 would be linking the M9 to N52/M3 corridor eventually.

Oh and Roscrea and Thurles bypasses. I think this is better balanced infrastructure as it feeds more central Ireland rather than creating another M50 near Dublin.

L1011 · 16-11-2009 9:25am

mysterious wrote: »

They recently knocked a few bridges on the M2 near belfast for widening. Hey they didn't do it the lazy way. And 65,000 vehicles passed under this bridge reconstruction!

Shocking really.

The bridges need more than a clean. They are rusting and old. The median has no room because of the extra support barriers to make sure the pillars don't get hit.

Those bridges were 25 years older and too narrow to take even D3 with no H/S under them. There were also acceptable alternative routes around them. There is no acceptable alternative route around any of the bridges on the Naas BP other than the one that isn't in use at all.

nordydan · 16-11-2009 9:29am

mysterious wrote: »

Phase 3 Tuallmore to Birr HQDC.

So you want what is effectively motorway from Tullamore to Birr??

Sponge Bob · 16-11-2009 9:34am

Not from Mullingar to Tullamore and none of your poncy 2+2 neither like mysterious said

mysterious · 16-11-2009 6:08pm

MYOB wrote: »

Those bridges were 25 years older and too narrow to take even D3 with no H/S under them. There were also acceptable alternative routes around them. There is no acceptable alternative route around any of the bridges on the Naas BP other than the one that isn't in use at all.

You seem to come up with some desparate attempts to sway to your argument.

No you see, they wanted to build a proper D3 with HS, it's something they have been doing in other countries. It's better to do it now and future proff the motorway sections rather than leaving everything to the last minute and under spec like you love it to be.

Where are you getting your notions there is no room around the bridges on the Naas bypass. Thats just a ludricous comment. A bridge can easily be built adjacent to it. They have done that on dozens of bridges on the M1 England. The Naas bypass has wide verges. The verges cannot be used because the existing bridge coluums are very thick and are right up to the carriegway. o when the M7 is widened here, it would be nonsensical and illogical to keep these bridges.

I know, they replace other bridges in other countries, kinda shocking really.

mysterious · 16-11-2009 6:15pm

nordydan wrote: »

So you want what is effectively motorway from Tullamore to Birr??

Well I would actually like to see a standard DC built here, a little bit higher grade than the 2+2. Reason being I would want the N52/N62 corridor here to be the focus of radial and interurban traffic that crosses up and down the country. From Birr to Nenagh(Limerick) and Birr to Thurles(Cork) Would be 2+2 standard.

Well the N52 multiplexes with the N6, N62, N51 from Birr to past Mullingar. The long term plan is already to DC Tullamore To Mullingar. The reason a lot of traffic don't use this road, because the standard of the road is atrocious. At least 2,000 cars a day avoid the N52 and go the longer way via Dublin up North than using the N52. It's a deathtrap for H.G.Vs

I think it's a valid point here, to move the Dublin focus. For example People from Kerry and Limerick use the M50 in Dublin to go to Belfast. It's motorway alright, but all this traffic doesn't need to be steering towards Dublin at all. It's one of the reasons why the M50 has so much traffic on it. All the countries roads feeds it. It's a planning disaster.

L1011 · 16-11-2009 9:10pm

mysterious wrote: »

You seem to come up with some desparate attempts to sway to your argument.

You're the one trying to justify spending hundreds of thousands needlessly. There's only desperation from one person here

mysterious wrote: »

No you see, they wanted to build a proper D3 with HS, it's something they have been doing in other countries. It's better to do it now and future proff the motorway sections rather than leaving everything to the last minute and under spec like you love it to be.

This is the NIRS you're speaking about - the barely understand what a hard shoulder IS, let alone any desire to build "proper" ones. They have motorways with no "proper" HS *AT ALL* as well as ones with no median barrier.

They replaced the bridges because they absolutely had to, that is all. As it is they've left an overbridge in place which needs a height restriction warning on the inner lanes!

And, oh, guess what - they left a bridge with no H/S under it also. I suspect you've never actually driven this section of road...

mysterious wrote: »

Where are you getting your notions there is no room around the bridges on the Naas bypass. Thats just a ludricous comment. A bridge can easily be built adjacent to it. They have done that on dozens of bridges on the M1 England. The Naas bypass has wide verges. The verges cannot be used because the existing bridge coluums are very thick and are right up to the carriegway. o when the M7 is widened here, it would be nonsensical and illogical to keep these bridges.

The same place you get your notions that theres not enough space to put three lanes under them... its "nonsensical and illogical" to keep structurally sound bridges wide enough to carry three lanes just so that one road geek can obsess about continuous hard shoulders.

mysterious wrote: »

I know, they replace other bridges in other countries, kinda shocking really.

They also use discontinuous H/S in other countries, yet you cry any time its suggested here. Either compare our road network to other countries consistently or not at all.

mysterious · 16-11-2009 9:26pm

MYOB wrote: »

You're the one trying to justify spending hundreds of thousands needlessly. There's only desperation from one person here

This is the NIRS you're speaking about - the barely understand what a hard shoulder IS, let alone any desire to build "proper" ones. They have motorways with no "proper" HS *AT ALL* as well as ones with no median barrier.

They replaced the bridges because they absolutely had to, that is all. As it is they've left an overbridge in place which needs a height restriction warning on the inner lanes!

And, oh, guess what - they left a bridge with no H/S under it also. I suspect you've never actually driven this section of road...

The same place you get your notions that theres not enough space to put three lanes under them... its "nonsensical and illogical" to keep structurally sound bridges wide enough to carry three lanes just so that one road geek can obsess about continuous hard shoulders.

They also use discontinuous H/S in other countries, yet you cry any time its suggested here. Either compare our road network to other countries consistently or not at all.

I know you want every motorway in the country narrow with no HS. I would even say. You think it's wise to keep old bridges and try squeeze a D4 lane into a D2 road bridge....:rolleyes:

L1011 · 16-11-2009 9:33pm

mysterious wrote: »

I know you want every motorway in the country narrow with no HS. I would even say. You think it's wise to keep old bridges and try squeeze a D4 lane into a D2 road bridge....:rolleyes:

Erm. No.

I want us to not waste stupid amounts of money doing things which are completely unnecessary. You on the other hand whimper at the slightest suggestion of a discontinuous H/S, as shown here and on the Nenagh Bypass threads.

Actually, you seem to have a habit of trying to personalise your desires in to being the opposite other peoples. You desperately want to keep your green line on your map around Athlone so you claim everyone else only wants redesignation to make it blue. You desperately want continuous H/S under bridges so now you're claiming I don't want them at all - anywhere. You might want to get help...

mysterious · 16-11-2009 9:36pm

You said:D

MYOB wrote: »

This is the NIRS you're speaking about - the barely understand what a hard shoulder IS, let alone any desire to build "proper" ones. They have motorways with no "proper" HS *AT ALL* as well as ones with no median barrier.

That is the M2 btw.

They replaced the bridges because they absolutely had to, that is all. As it is they've left an overbridge in place which needs a height restriction warning on the inner lanes!

Like any other road, they don't do things the lazy. They built a bridge for teh right requirement of a D3M road. Simple as.

And, oh, guess what - they left a bridge with no H/S under it also. I suspect you've never actually driven this section of road...

I have, can you post me the bridge.

[/quote]
They also use discontinuous H/S in other countries, yet you cry any time its suggested here. Either compare our road network to other countries consistently or not at all.[/quote]

And many are been replaced. It would be a lot of manpower to replace every motorway bridge in other countries when most of thier motorways were built post world war periods.

mysterious · 16-11-2009 9:37pm

MYOB wrote: »

Erm. No.

I want us to not waste stupid amounts of money doing things which are completely unnecessary. You on the other hand whimper at the slightest suggestion of a discontinuous H/S, as shown here and on the Nenagh Bypass threads.

So, ok.

Leave them as it is, and make sure we keep it as low spec. If our bridges are all under spec and every one of the bridges should have no HS and no future for extra lanes, I fail to see your logic at all in "cost saving and benifets" I mean even if it's pointless saving the Naas road bridges. We will keep them anyway no matter what. I personally do not see the logic in saving the old Naas road bridges for the sake of saving them. 65,000 vehicles a day use it. and The bridges will have to go eventually they are not up to the design spec of todays demands.

Lets not future proof of course.

Ah sure it's grand no?

L1011 · 16-11-2009 9:42pm

mysterious wrote: »

That is the M2 btw.

Like any other road, they don't do things the lazy. They built a bridge for teh right requirement of a D3M road. Simple as.

I have, can you post me the bridge.

That is the M2 pre upgrade. The bridge with no HS is the BRIDGE THAT SODDING PHOTO WAS TAKEN FROM! Bellvue.

Clearly you actually *haven't* driven the road since its upgrade if you think that photo is representitive of it.

Additionally, that is just one part of the M2. It is another part of the M2 that has no proper H/S at all and no median - the Ballymena BP.

mysterious wrote: »

And many are been replaced. It would be a lot of manpower to replace every motorway bridge in other countries when most of thier motorways were built post world war periods.

They're being replaced when they need to be - and the Naas BP ones don't need to be.

L1011 · 16-11-2009 9:44pm

mysterious wrote: »

So, ok.

Leave them as it is, and make sure we keep it as low spec. If our bridges are all under spec and every one of the bridges should have no HS and no future for extra lanes, I fail to see your logic at all in "cost saving and benifets" I mean even if it's pointless saving the Naas road bridges. We will keep them anyway no matter what. I personally do not see the logic in saving the old Naas road bridges for the sake of saving them. 65,000 vehicles a day use it. and The bridges will have to go eventually they are not up to the design spec of todays demands.

Lets not future proof of course.

Ah sure it's grand no?

Its keeping them for the sake of hundreds of thousands of euro and mass disruption, not the "sake of saving them". I know you have some ideas about cash that are not with this world, but the rest of us here actually live in reality, where there isn't the money to waste "future proofing" bridges beyond what the road itself is future proofed for. The roadway cannot carry D4M, it can only take D3M. So can the bridges.

loyatemu · 18-11-2009 11:39am

I don't know how busy the N4 is, but the major destinations along it are all served by train and the interconnector/Dart upgrade project would result in a massively improved rail service along this route. I'd much rather see this progressed than adding more and more lanes to the motorways around Dublin.

Irish and Proud · 18-11-2009 2:27pm

Was on the M1 this morning and the M1 South to M50 South connector (Turnapin) was open alright, but the traffic at Lissenhall was horrendous - both the M1 South and R132 South were bumper to bumper - both leading into and coming out of the interchange that is – yes, 4 solid lanes of traffic inbound. The Malahide Viaduct re-opening seems to have made no difference at all. That said, once past the Estuary Roundabout, there's no real traffic problems on the R132 - Fingal CC has plans for a Southbound bus lane (a reconstructed hard shoulder on the R132) from the Tesco Roundabout (South of Blakes Cross) to the Estuary Roundabout - here's the link:

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/Roads/QualityBusCorridorsQBCs/ProposedBusQBCNthofSwords/

Also, a third lane on the M1 from Lissenhall is badly needed. However, we need that R132 bus lane now!

Regards!

M1/M4/M7 upgrades - new PPP?

Comments