Article: NRA dismisses "ghost motorway" claims from An Taisce

Amtmann · 24-08-2010 10:37AM #1

By Treacy Hogan
Tuesday August 24 2010
THE National Roads Authority (NRA) has hit out at accusations it is building "ghost" motorways.

Heritage body An Taisce claimed there had been "chronic misspending" on motorways at a time when there were 22,000 fewer drivers on Irish roads.

It said the NRA was using seven-year-old data predicting traffic growth of up to 3pc annually, even though traffic had fallen by 7pc in the past two years.

In a statement, An Taisce claimed the new network of motorways would become "ghost roads" as oil prices rose and traffic fell even further.

"The NRA's proposals for 850km of additional motorway is a charter for gross misspending," it said. "What Ireland needs is a proper national public transport plan, not legacy projects left over from a boom time."

However, NRA director of corporate affairs Michael Egan dismissed the criticism and said the authority was building a roads network for 20 years ahead.

"Take the old Dublin Cork road. If that upgrade had not happened there would have been chaos," he said.

"And the M50 was regarded as the biggest car park in Europe as it had reached saturation point."

Mr Egan dismissed claims the NRA was using out-of-date projections for traffic. He said traffic figures were on the NRA website and there for anyone to see.

"We are completely open about this data," he added.

- Treacy Hogan

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/roads-authority-criticises-ghost-motorway-claims-2309061.html

cnocbui · 24-08-2010 10:59AM

I never thought I would ever agree with An Taisce about anything, but looks like I was mistaken.

They are right.

The nation never needed, or could afford, the new motorways that have just been constructed. All that was really needed was bypasses of towns and frequent and numerous overtaking lanes and a keep left rule that was enforced.. Such lanes could easily have been accommodated using the existing road infrastructure using some paint and realigned cats eyes. Do away with the tractor lane - sorry, hard shoulder - and there you have your overtaking lanes without having to lay any tarmac.

Too cheap to implement and it wouldn't have kept the NRA staff employed but the nation would not be in the dire financial state it currently is in.

KevR · 24-08-2010 11:05AM

What Ireland needs is a proper national public transport plan, not legacy projects left over from a boom time."

As far as I know, 68 Galway-Dublin buses now use the M6/4 daily. A further 54-58 buses daily benefit from much more reliable and faster journey times on the R446. The M6/4 has really changed the dynamic of public transport between Galway and Dublin in a hugely positive way.

I think the M6/4 isn't regarded by some as a public transport improvement because it also benefits private motorists. Projects that inflict huge amounts of pain on private motorists while only delivering slight benefits to public transport users (e.g. - a 24hr bus lane that only a handful of buses use) would probably get loads of praise from An Taisce.

Ash.J.Williams · 24-08-2010 11:10AM

Dublin to galway

outstanding
Dublin to Belfast

outstanding
Dublin to Cork

outstanding
dublin to navan

outstanding

no more do we have to sit behind f**ers who millitantly try and slow you down on a long journey. These motorways make us look like a half normal country.

KevR · 24-08-2010 11:14AM

When the Newry Bypass opened recently I heard someone say on the radio that Belfast-Cork used to to take 7.5-8 hours and now it only takes 4 hours.

A few years ago, you would have to think long and hard before driving from Belfast to Cork (or some other similar journey) because of the time involved but now you can just jump in the car a go.

123easy · 24-08-2010 11:20AM

Heritage body An Taisce claimed there had been "chronic misspending" on motorways at a time when there were 22,000 fewer drivers on Irish roads.

22,000 fewer drivers on Irish roads is utterly insignificant. Typical propaganda of this bunch of backward idiots. I wonder how the number of 22000 was arrived at in the first place

So lets for exageration sake say a generous two thirds of these would be regular users of our national primary interurban routes that gives 22000 * 0.66 = 14,500 and lets say for example we have 12 main national primary routes that leads to a whopping drop of 1200 cars per day on each route which is totally insignificant and would hardly warrant the term ghost roads. Maybe they are on about ghosts appearing from the hill of tara

Praise to the NRA and our brilliant new motorway network. Its just what this country needs.

cnocbui wrote: »

All that was really needed was bypasses of towns and frequent and numerous overtaking lanes and a keep left rule that was enforced..

Too cheap to implement and it wouldn't have kept the NRA staff employed but the nation would not be in the dire financial state it currently is in.

I cant really see the keep left rule working and to be honest the idea of frequent and numerous overtaking lanes would be an awful mess aka online widening! - It was considered and used where approriate but in the majority of cases disregarded due to the obvious problem associated with it

To say the nation would not be in the dire financial state it is in if your idea was implemented and the MIU were not completed is total nonsense. Did you ever hear of Anglo, BOI,AIB, NAMA and the celebrity property developers?? A lot of the MIUs were funded by private capital via the PPP Process anyway

brandodub · 24-08-2010 11:36AM

Cannot agree with An Taisce . Whatever the legacy of boom times there are many thousands who must still commute by car. I'm willing to pay the tolls so I dont go mad sitting behind people who have nowhere to go in any great hurry.

Besides now I dont have to laugh out loud when overseas friends suggest we drive to Cork or Galway or even Newry. I say well done on the new motorways

Stonewolf · 24-08-2010 12:42PM

An Taisce n: A public body that defies the laws of physics by being even more destestable than CIE

cnocbui · 24-08-2010 12:51PM

123easy wrote: »

Heritage body An Taisce claimed there had been "chronic misspending" on motorways at a time when there were 22,000 fewer drivers on Irish roads.

22,000 fewer drivers on Irish roads is utterly insignificant. Typical propaganda of this bunch of backward idiots. I wonder how the number of 22000 was arrived at in the first place

Might have had something to do with stories like this:

Figures from Eurostat have revealed that Ireland has the highest emigration rate in the EU.

The figures show that Irish emigration rate during 2009 was 9%. This was twice the rate of emigration levels of the next country, Lithuania, at 4.6%.

Other countries showing high levels of emigration included Cyprus, Latvia and Bulgaria.

Recent forecasts from the ESRI have warned that up to 120,000 will leave the country by the end of 2011 if employment levels do not improve.

http://www.insideireland.ie/index.cfm/section/News/ext/emmigration001/category/893

I cant really see the keep left rule working and to be honest the idea of frequent and numerous overtaking lanes would be an awful mess aka online widening! - It was considered and used where approriate but in the majority of cases disregarded due to the obvious problem associated with it

Telling people not to exceed the speed limit and to not drink and drive are equally impractical then would you suppose? Along with, expecting motorists to stop at red traffic lights and to give way to traffic already on a roundabout.

You could even - shock, horror - allow undertaking as is allowed in the US and Australia on multi-lane roads..

What lane widening? You take away the hard shoulder and you have enough room for three lanes at least, without having to widen anything, just change the artwork on the road surface.

To say the nation would not be in the dire financial state it is in if your idea was implemented and the MIU were not completed is total nonsense. Did you ever hear of Anglo, BOI,AIB, NAMA and the celebrity property developers?? A lot of the MIUs were funded by private capital via the PPP Process anyway

Part of the problem is an availability of capital to lend. Billions have been tied up in building motorways. It seems to me that would imply there is less available on hand to lend. I'll rephrase it - 'might not be in the dire...'

ForiegnNational · 24-08-2010 01:07PM

An Taisce are obviously based happily in the middle of Dublin and never need to go further away from their office than the end of a Luas line.

I am just back from a trip up to Castlebar and I would have severe issue with their findings that the M20, the new Limerick Tunnel and the M18 are Ghost Motorways. They are safe, fast AND FUEL EFFICIENT!

Contrast this to the goat track with is the Cork to Limerick N20, where you waste huge amounts of fuel stuck in traffic though towns like Charleville or Buttevant.

Traveling to Dublin from Cork is now much more fuel efficient than queuing through Fermoy, Michelstown and Abbeyleix. In addition, there is now no high fuel usage going from 40kph zones to 100kph zones or going up and down the hills on the old roads.

This is I'm afraid a report by people in ivory towers, that do not deal with the lack of public transport facilities intra-town or intra-urban outside of Dublin.

LFCFan · 24-08-2010 01:48PM

An Taisce are the most pointless organisation run by people who are out of touch with reality and should never be allowed to sway decisions on public infrastructure projects. It is extremely small minded and shows a complete lack of forward thinking to say that this country doesn't need motorways. We have suffered already from a lack of forward thinking when it comes to building roads. e.g. The M50. The same crap is going on with the new terminal at the airport. People moaning that we don't need the terminal NOW. For too long we've built for now and not for the future.

Amtmann · 24-08-2010 02:22PM

LFCFan wrote: »

It is extremely small minded and shows a complete lack of forward thinking to say that this country doesn't need motorways. We have suffered already from a lack of forward thinking when it comes to building roads. e.g. The M50. The same crap is going on with the new terminal at the airport. People moaning that we don't need the terminal NOW. For too long we've built for now and not for the future.

Absolutely. Infrastructure such as the new motorway network has multi-generational utility. They will still be in place a century from now. They are exceptionally good value for money and are an extremely worthwhile investment. They are good for the economy, good for the environment (yes, they are), good for connectivity and good for safety. They are one legacy of the boom we can call happily live with, and to suggest that they should not have been built - or that the old trunk roads could have been upgraded effectively - belies a lack of knowledge of roads and infrastructure in general.

Ren2k7 · 24-08-2010 03:10PM

An Taisce seen to think that its only regular motorists in their cars that use the motorways. Have they not heard of freight traffic or hauliers. Surely taking these out of towns and well away from communities can only be a good thing.

celticbest · 25-08-2010 11:27AM

Ren2k7 wrote: »

An Taisce seen to think that its only regular motorists in their cars that use the motorways. Have they not heard of freight traffic or hauliers. Surely taking these out of towns and well away from communities can only be a good thing.

+1

celticbest · 25-08-2010 11:27AM

If An Taisce had there way we would probably not have the M50 at all, considering that when it was originally built it was planned with 3 lanes in each direction & ended up being built with only two, then we had to carry out the current upgrade at a cost of 1 billion Euro's.

If planners in this country had any foresight they would build big on infrastructure as at some stage as has been proven by the M50 upgrade it would be required.

Another example of this is the M1 widening which is currently planned as far as the Drynan Interchange instead of the Lissenhall Interchange which you can more or less guarantee will be done in the next Five years even though it is required now.

Look at Newlands Cross, how can this be left in its current state, traffic on most days of the weeks backs up past the Red Cow on the Naas Road, a simple free flow junction here would have meant that your journey from the Border to Cork would have been non-stop all the way as all junctions on the mainline route would have been Freeflow. (M1S to M50S, M50S to N7/M7 outbound to M8 to Cork.)

corktina · 25-08-2010 12:05PM

the bit that stands out to me is that the M9,M8 and M7 all use the two lanes (mostly) on the way out to Naas ,and beyond, reasonably comfortably and yet feed three motorways. Either there is over-capacity/duplication OR the section from the Red Cow to the M9 divergence needs an extra lane or two. Personally I dont think two paralell motorways to Limerick and Cork were necessary and building the M20 to Limerick from Cork would have avoided building the M8 altogether.

darkman2 · 25-08-2010 12:22PM

Furet wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/roads-authority-criticises-ghost-motorway-claims-2309061.html

I said it before - I say it again, they are serial objectors/interferers. The taxpayer should not be funding these people (I don't know who they think they are btw) to object to very single scheme that is of national importance.

celticbest · 25-08-2010 03:38PM

darkman2 wrote: »

I said it before - I say it again, they are serial objectors/interferers. The taxpayer should not be funding these people (I don't know who they think they are btw) to object to very single scheme that is of national importance.

A new law should be passed - If a scheme is seen as for the greater good of the people then no objections can be make against it, except for basic design amendments, like junctions layouts, sound proofing for local residents etc.

No formal objections should be allowed like Carrickmines a few years back or the more recent Tara objections.

Sponge Bob · 25-08-2010 04:51PM

celticbest wrote: »

No formal objections should be allowed like Carrickmines a few years back or the more recent Tara objections.

I am not sure you could do that but you could make them personally liable for "Unreasonable Delays" . That would shut them up ....themselves and Isaac.

As to their traffic assertion , why is traffic GROWING year on year on the M6...would it because it is a motorway not a boreen any more ???

limklad · 31-08-2010 01:17AM

There is alot of people in AN TAISCE who are anti development. Ireland development are decades behind what they should have been. Our Infrastructure is still trailing from the 1960's to 90's rather than plan ahead for the future. Just look at Water treatment plants. They were built for 1980's housing density rather than the boom times.

When it comes to Motorways they are far safer than national routes.
Motorways save lifes. RSA and Gardai figures proves that.

Motorway also reduces CO2 by removing the stop/start and constant repeatability of slowing down and quick acceleration with National/Local/Villages/towns and it is there when the vehicles create the greatest amount of CO2 and other pollutants.

yuloni · 31-08-2010 01:32AM

This post has been deleted.

Einhard · 31-08-2010 01:54AM

celticbest wrote: »

A new law should be passed - If a scheme is seen as for the greater good of the people then no objections can be make against it, except for basic design amendments, like junctions layouts, sound proofing for local residents etc.

No formal objections should be allowed like Carrickmines a few years back or the more recent Tara objections.

That's all well and good but how do you gauge whether a scheme is for the greater good or not? It's purely subjective. If that approach was to be adopted, schemes could be just railroaded through against legitimate objections.

Condi wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you have any proof for those claims?

I can understand why people get angry about the likes of An Taisce. Every now and then I have a similar reaction when I read about some development they're objecting to for what seems just for the sake of being contrary. But, this country has been plagued over the past 20 years or more with absolutely terrible planning decisions. Housing estates built without an amenities or even proper access routes, genuinely important heritage sites bulldozed to make way for cheap offices, shopping centres built along major arterial routes...and the list goes on and on. And none of this was the fault of An Taisce. Indeed, if more pople has been as interested in planning then as they are now, then we might well have been saved from such fiascos. It mightn't seem like it all the time, but An Taisce and bodies like them play an important role in the planning process. They represent a dissenting voice which, when one considers that an approved project will impact on an area for generations, is a welcome and necessary thing. Also, they work within the existing planning framework. They're not throwing spanners in the works, so much as applying the existing spanners that are designed to act as a safeguard. I know they can drive people crazy at times, but I really think that they play an important and necessary role in the system.

yuloni · 31-08-2010 02:13AM

This post has been deleted.

Einhard · 31-08-2010 02:30AM

Condi wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I call it untrue to be honest. In order for that scenario to be possible, An Taisce would have had to be in cahoots with not just the second developer, but also the local and national planning authorties. Seems unlikely to me.

celticbest · 31-08-2010 09:40AM

Einhard wrote: »

That's all well and good but how do you gauge whether a scheme is for the greater good or not? It's purely subjective. If that approach was to be adopted, schemes could be just railroaded through against legitimate objections.

That's quite simple really, it a road is needed then it gets built.

As we have seen with most cases in this country the road ends up being built after all the objection are heard and thrown out, instead of the process taking years in some cases to be resolved there would be no need as no objections would be allowed.

An example as stated before is the construction of the M3 which was objected to at every opportunity even though the the M3 is further away from Tara than the existing N3 Dublin-Navan Road.

Ref : Q5. Why destroy the landscape surrounding the Hill of Tara? http://www.m3motorway.ie/FAQ/#five

Einhard · 31-08-2010 02:14PM

celticbest wrote: »

That's quite simple really, it a road is needed then it gets built.

As we have seen with most cases in this country the road ends up being built after all the objection are heard and thrown out, instead of the process taking years in some cases to be resolved there would be no need as no objections would be allowed.

An example as stated before is the construction of the M3 which was objected to at every opportunity even though the the M3 is further away from Tara than the existing N3 Dublin-Navan Road.

Ref : Q5. Why destroy the landscape surrounding the Hill of Tara? http://www.m3motorway.ie/FAQ/#five

But even the need for such roads is subjective. You or I might see the need for a motorway, but not everyone will, and I don't think we can just turn around and basically tell objectors to go away, the project is needed. If that can happen for a new road, why not an incinerator, or even a nuclear power plant (which I'd argue we do actually need)?

Also, it's not An Taisce's fault that the planning appeals system was (is) so cumbersome. That's something successive governments should have looked at and reformed, so objections and concerns could be addressed in a more expeditious manner.

spacetweek · 31-08-2010 04:20PM

Einhard wrote: »

I call it untrue to be honest. In order for that scenario to be possible, An Taisce would have had to be in cahoots with not just the second developer, but also the local and national planning authorties. Seems unlikely to me.

Seconded. Condi, let's have less groundless speculation. Use Occam's razor to figure out the most likely explanation for An Taisce's behaviour - they're a dissenting voice that challenges existing assumptions, but they can't challenge everything.

celticbest wrote: »

That's quite simple really, it a road is needed then it gets built.

Celtic, I agree with you about the M3 and the rest, but your analysis boils down to "Us Boardsies want motorways, so no one should be allowed to object to them as they're in the national interest." Plenty of legitimate objections are made to construction projects all the time - An Taisce's aren't, but there are other perfectly valid ones.

In an open society, you have to be allowed to challenge the status quo. You may be wrong, but you must be allowed to say it.

spacetweek · 31-08-2010 04:20PM

corktina wrote: »

the bit that stands out to me is that the M9,M8 and M7 all use the two lanes (mostly) on the way out to Naas ,and beyond, reasonably comfortably and yet feed three motorways. Either there is over-capacity/duplication OR the section from the Red Cow to the M9 divergence needs an extra lane or two. Personally I dont think two paralell motorways to Limerick and Cork were necessary and building the M20 to Limerick from Cork would have avoided building the M8 altogether.

No, because the roads also have local traffic which enters and leaves without using the Naas Road at any stage. You're making the mistake of thinking that all of the M7/8/9's traffic is sourced from Dublin.

daveharnett · 31-08-2010 05:06PM

So an taisce claims the NRA was being short sighted by planning for 3% growth forever, and instead suggests that we should plan for 7% contraction forever?

An taisce could be right on this one. If we revert to living in trees and foraging for nuts and berries, the motorways probably won't be needed. I sometimes wonder if that is their goal.

Manic Preacher · 31-08-2010 05:09PM

Sounds like An Taisce are fronted by a bunch of environmentalists that want everyone cycling on bikes and planting trees everywhere.

celticbest · 01-09-2010 09:22AM

Einhard wrote: »

But even the need for such roads is subjective. You or I might see the need for a motorway, but not everyone will, and I don't think we can just turn around and basically tell objectors to go away, the project is needed. If that can happen for a new road, why not an incinerator, or even a nuclear power plant (which I'd argue we do actually need)?

spacetweek wrote: »

Celtic, I agree with you about the M3 and the rest, but your analysis boils down to "Us Boardsies want motorways, so no one should be allowed to object to them as they're in the national interest." Plenty of legitimate objections are made to construction projects all the time - An Taisce's aren't, but there are other perfectly valid ones.

In an open society, you have to be allowed to challenge the status quo. You may be wrong, but you must be allowed to say it.

My reasoning behind the requirement for planning to be pushed through on major infrastructure is not down to me wanting Motorways it down the country needing them, no other country in Western Europe had Infrastructure as bad as us & if all the objections that were put in over the years were allowed to stand we would still have the third world infrastructure we had in the early 2000's.

Just imagine, the year is 2002 you were the CEO of a major multinational company and came to Ireland to have a look around with the intention of locating here only to find that the infrastructure in place was not far better than third world standard!

Say you wanted to look at a location like Galway, one of our major cities.

You land at Dublin Airport at say 7am. Depart Dublin airport at 7:30am after collecting your bags & passing through immigration, you get picked up outside & then start your journey, you get to the Roundabout exiting the airport were you join the N1 which is the Main road from Belfast to Dublin you sit in traffic from the moment you leave the Airport & join the M1, (at the time the M1 only started at the airport roundabout), on a good day it would be about 20 mins before you get to the M50 off ramp, after another 15 mins at best you get to the top of the ramp & around the roundabout to join the M50 & from here have to sit in traffic all the way to Junction 7 which on an average day would take the best part of an hour and you also have the privilege of paying a toll on the way. After queueing to get off you are still in heavy traffic passing Lucan which usually takes another 20mins to get to.

At this stage you have got from the Airport to the just past Lucan in about 1:45 Mins & are ready to pull you hair out knowing you still have about another 195km to go & you have only travelled 25km. From here you could probably have added on another 2hrs 30mins min. giving you a total journey time of over 4hrs min.

From this you can understand why most major multinational's ended up locating in & around Dublin, if you wanted to get your goods to the major Ports or Airport you had to be near them, otherwise your journey time was crazy and as a result of this most jobs created in the boom where in and around the greater Dublin area, thus the reason why we have such a disportionate population in and around the Greater Dublin area compared to the rest of the country.

As least now if the economy picks up all major cities will be linked directly by Motorway to our major Ports & Airport & this means that the transport of goods is now much more efficient.

PS. The same journey from the Dublin Airport to Galway would now take an estimated 2:20 mins, nearly half the journey time of ten years ago.

Article: NRA dismisses "ghost motorway" claims from An Taisce

Comments