N11/N25 - Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour [route options published]

thedarkroom wrote: »

The only thing that I can see might stop this is complete and utter bankruptcy and the funding vanishes.

Errh... I think this country is already there! Cannot see this road going ahead in the current economic climate given the amount of money needed to just keep our head above water paying for vital services!

spacetweek wrote: »

True. I was rethinking this this morning. Although the road is eligible under TEN, presumably these are vetted. No way would the EU sign off on a motorway to a town of 1,000 people.

In fairness, the size of the population would not be much of a justification to use to build this road. The issue is improved access to the Port of Rosslare to cater for it as a transport hub.
While I'm not trying to justify the project in the current economy, I can see how improving this might help promote and expand the port as an access point for freight as well as tourism. Obviously, there are other issues going on around these topics which would mitigate against Rosslare but the potential to increase traffic is obvious. The volcanic ash crisis this year highlighted the fragility of air transport while sea transport is more resilient, while certainly slower.
A bit like Knock Airport, build it and they will come . . . . possibly, but then again, maybe that's not such a good analogy but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.

jd wrote: »

Given those traffic levels, are we close to when at least a D2AP is required for these sections? (Wexford Town to end of Enniscorthy by-pass)

I'm sure I'll kick myself for asking this question but what is a 'D2AP' ?

mac.the.hat wrote: »

• According to the Wexford County Council/NRA traffic projections, vehicle volumes are increasing by 2%-3% every year. According to the fixed traffic counters (countrywide), the volumes are decreasing by significantly higher percentages.
• Current traffic volumes show no need whatsoever for a major road improvement project between Oilgate and Rosslare Harbour and in line with the current trends, there won't be a need for a long time to come.

If we base all infrastructure spending on statistics obtained during a recession we would never come out of recession. Traffic volumes will increase when economic growth returns so we have to plan for these higher levels instead of the current levels. Roads built based on the current recessionary traffic levels would quickly reach capacity when the economy picks up and would require expensive upgrades later. The lack of foresight in the past led to our infrastructure deficit and thankfully the NRA has started planning for the future, which will save us money in the long run.

• Practically speaking, there aren't traffic issues on the road between Oilgate and Rosslare Harbour. There may be occasional slowdowns caused by traffic from the ferries but they certainly don't warrant anything like what is being proposed. For example, I arrived at the Whitford Roundabout one morning last week and met the ferry traffic... ok, I was waiting for 38 seconds... that I can handle. There is no obvious need.

There may be no obvious need to you but is there is to businesses. We are a small island on the northern extremities of the continent who is heavily reliant on exporting. Businesses need get their products to the destination where they will be sold in a cheap, efficient and reliable manner. We also have very few resources in this country so these have to be imported and transported to factories also. Building the road would reduce journey times and allow for better planning of journeys which would be of huge benefit to businesses.

• Taking into account the fact that the AA are telling us that there are 30,000 less cars on our roads, the sizeable decrease in rental fleets and the inaccuracies in the projections, one would wonder exactly what is going on.

And what happens if the number of cars on the roads increases by 60,000 over the next ten years, which is quite possible? If we only build new roads when traffic levels are at there highest, during booms, we will be in the next bust cycle before they are finished. It makes sense to procede with building as much infrastructure in times like these when costs are lower.

• Rosslare Europort does not need a bigger road. Volumes going through the port peaked in 2006, without a motorway/dual carriageway and have been declining ever since. This is documented in the statistics available on their website.

Volumes going through the port have been in decline because we are in recession, prehaps you are pleased with this trend and want to see this decline in the harbour continue indefinitely? As an island, ports are very important to this country for getting goods in and out of here so they should have good road links. How do you expect the volumes going through the port to ever increase without the road?

• The existing Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour road has been classified as a safe road. Ok, there have been accidents over the years but in terms of the overall safety record, it has been pretty good. It is generally accepted that motorways are a safer type of road but when accidents happen, they are far more serious and cost the state far more. Let's face it, if someone falls off a bike, it's going to cost the state when they get to the hospital, just imagine what that cost would be in the case of a motorway accident.

See marmurr1916's post above.

• The NRA are out of control. The Minister for Transport has been asked officially for information relating to the proposed development and his response was that he didn't know, it was an NRA issue. Does anybody remember voting for the NRA in the last election? I certainly don't.

The best thing about the NRA is that they are not elected and therefore do not pull the same stunts politicians do to get votes. They get on with the business of developing the road network and do not have any hidden agendas or looking after vested interests. The NRA get the road build with less faffing about and the minister only shows up at the opening for the photo op, less ministerial involvement the better IMO.

• There is a joint party agreement in place that all Wexford TDs and County Councillors will support this project. What the hell is going on here? What happened to democracy?

Maybe all Wexford TDs and County Councillors realise the benefits this road will bring to the county and therefore support it. Those people were elected by the people to make these decisions, that is democracy.

• The NRA Code of Practice for Business Members states quite clearly that the five underlying principles are Integrity, Loyalty, Legal and Regulatory Compliance, Fairness and Confidentiality. I can't quote the whole thing but you can read it here http://www.nra.ie/Publications/DownloadableDocumentation/GeneralPublications/file,16161,en.pdf - For example, under Integrity they state that staff members should 'ensure that there is no conflict of interest between the discharge of their duties as staff members of the NRA and any beneficial interest they may have. A conflict of interest arises where involvement or association with an outside activity could influence or be seen to influence how the NRA carries out its business'. Who is influencing who between the NRA and the Co Council?
• Let's look at it from another angle, the NRA Code of Practice for Business Members also states under Loyalty that 'Staff members owe to the NRA loyalty and commitment in all its activities. Staff members should support colleagues and the NRA in all matters related to NRA activities. They should not undermine through action or omission the goals and objectives of NRA. All grievances and concerns should be progressed through agreed internal channels prior to any action that might affect public confidence or the good name of the Authority.' How does this affect Mr Eddie Breen, Wexford County Manager and member of the board of the NRA? Is his loyalty with the people of Wexford or with the NRA? He is being employed as Wexford County Manager and at the same time, he is required to be ultimately loyal to the NRA. Now, that does not sound right does it?

I have no idea what you are talking about here but I do know that it is utter nonsense.

• Let's look at it from another angle again... a quick calculation reveals that an unnecessary motorway or dual carriageway through Co Wexford from Oilgate to Rosslare Harbour will directly consume close to 1000 acres of agricultural land and replace it with tarmac and cement. How is this going to effect Co Wexford? This goes well beyond the scope of an EIS.

See Sponge Bob's post.

• Who is going to pay for the development of this unnecessary road? Europe? Not on your nelly... the Irish Taxpayers will be paying for this one. Yep, they are the same ones that are being screwed day in, day out and now they are getting hit again for an unnecessary motorway/dual carriageway. As one of that category, I am certainly not happy about it... are you? It's not just the Wexford taxpayers that are going to be paying for this one, it is every taxpayer in Ireland.

I would rather see my tax money being spent on roads than a lot of the crap we are paying for.

• Our hospitals and health servies are creaking at the seams. Last night there were 228 patients on trollies throughout Ireland. Why the hell are our Government even considering spending close to 1 billion on an unnecessary motorway/whatever when our sick cannot be given hospital beds.

The HSE is a blackhole and most of the money that is put into it is wasted. Simply redirecting the money from this scheme into the health service would probably do very little to open beds in hospitals. The HSE needs to be reformed and simply throwing more money at it is not the solution. It should spend the money it gets more effectively before getting any more.

• At the end of Q3 2010, our National Debt was 88.6 billion and again, why is the building of an expensive, unnecessary road even being considered when we are looking at these sort of figures. In 1980, it was 10 billion and then came the boom years and where did it go? It needs to be reduced and not added to. We have enough problems with NAMA and the banks and the unemployment and the hospitals and...

In the long run, the most effective way of reducing the National Debt is to increase the national income in order to repay the debt, as opposed to scrapping government spending. Building roads like this will stimulate economic activity and increase exchequer returns meaning we will be able to repay the debt. Increasing the National Debt is not a bad thing as long as you are in a position to repay it, building roads will put us in a better position to repay in the future.

• The ridiculous waste of funds on these white elephant roads has been criticised by An Taisce, Dr Edgar Morgenroth from the ESRI and others. If there is a need, do it... if not, don't waste taxpayers money when it can be put to much better uses.

First of all An Taisce are in no position to criticise anyone on wasting funds. That aside, roads are vital to our economy and they stimulate economic activity as I explained above, there are not too many other things that we can spend money on which give more returns.

• At the end of the day, if the road is developed as the errr 'gateway to Europe', what exactly is it going to be connecting to? A ferry in Rosslare Harbour that will in turn connect with National Roads in Wales or National Roads in France. Now, that's some joke!

The only reason Rosslare Harbour is a joke is because of people like you who want to stifle its development and do nothing but criticise. The lack of ambition of some(most) people in this country is frightening.

+1 @ Pete_Cavan, Sponge Bob, marmurr1916

I sat down to try and answer some of these points this morning but decided I couldn't be bothered. People like the original poster don't want answers to their points, they just want to promote an agenda. But it's good that they get challenged on those grounds.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

my only objection is how it will affect the strand, but otherwise, I welcome it! Maybe the people around the Rosslare area could adapt a more positive attitude towards their Port - surely a source of employment!

There was already a route selection process completed (in 2002, I think) for the portion of the road closest to the Harbour and the Strand. There weren't too many objections from the local residents - many of whom presumably depend on the port for their livelihood.

mac.the.hat wrote: »

Guys,

I'm bowing out of this one. I'm very new to boards.ie which makes me a newbie and not a nimby. I thought I was getting involved in an open discussion. I'm not a professional and I didn't make my post to get savaged.

If this is what newbies get around here, it doesn't say a great deal for boards.ie

For the record, I would have welcomed answers to my points which is the reason why I made them and I was not trying to promote an agenda. They were made in the course of a discussion, or at least I thought they were.

By the way, indications from the Roads Liasion Office are that the final road will be a lot wider than 32m and a number of the possible routes are well in excess of 30km in length.

The reason why I didn't return sooner was because I was taking it easy today... it is Sunday after all.

Bye

This is an open discussion and you are free to reply to our posts and counteract the points we have put forward. I will (and I'm sure most of the other posters here will also) happily change my opinion on the issue if you can put forward a credible and reasonable argument as to why I should. However, as this is an open discussion you should be prepared for others to question what you have said, and some of these responses may disagree with you (this may come as a surprise but even if you are 100% correct there is always someone who will disagree with you). If you can not adequately rebut our arguments you should accept that you have been misinformed and in future do your own research and not believe everything you hear. You are of course entitled to your opinion and you can continue to believe whatever you want, but you should be careful about spreading false information. Please do not delete your subscription to boards.ie because a few people disagree with you as this is the sign of an extremely immature, stubborn and closed minded individual. I am trying not to sound condescending here but if you can not accept what I have just said you do not deserve a public forum in which to voice your opinions imo.

mac.the.hat wrote: »

Thanks for your post Pete.

I'd love to have had a discussion on the subject. That was the reason why I signed up and posted in the first place. Of course there are going to be people who will disagree regardless and the is the point in discussing a subject, you get to hear everybodys position and you learn.

Unfortunately, responses like this don't do much for open discussion and they aren't particularly helpful to somebody new who would like to participate in a discussion.



I really would love to have participated in the discussion and I would love to have heard your opinions on my points and to contribute but I really don't feel welcome. My reason for bowing out is nothing to do with small mindedness, being stubborn or immature, it is to do with common courtesy.

Maybe you could all go a bit easier on the next person who tries to get involved.

m@c

You completely misunderstood my post. My point was that you are the one preventing the open discussion you claim to be seeking. You listed the token arguments always put forward in opposition of a road, failing to realise that these arguments are easily counter by those with even a basic understanding of the issues involved. The arguments you put forward may be accepted as gospel by the auld fellas on the high stools at your local but not around here. The next part of an open discussion should have taken the form of you offering some sort of rebuttal to the points we put forward but your inability to do so leads me to believe your opposition to the road is based entirely on blind NIMBYism. Instead of participating in the discussion any more you claim the big boys are ganging up on you and you cry that you "don't feel welcome". It is quite clear from this that the last thing you are interested in is participating in an open discussion.

mac.the.hat wrote: »

For the record, I would have welcomed answers to my points which is the reason why I made them and I was not trying to promote an agenda.

Your points were answered. In my case, I answered your point about road safety (your assertion that the road between Rosslare Harbour and Oilgate had been classified as a safe route) with facts from EuroRAP which disproved your assertion.

Other posters responded in like manner.

Your response? You're all meanies, I'm going home to mammy..