A 5 Billion Metro subway to Swords!

murphaph · 29-10-2010 4:13pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Sorry that picture was meant to illustrate the areas that do not have electrified rail systems and the fact that Ireland is not comparable to Germany rather the Scottish highlands, Sardinia and Albania.

So what does that prove exactly? That our economy is like Albania's or that we have an under-developed infrastructure for our economic status? Looks to me like you just found a picture and lashed it up though.

The map itself is, as already pointed out, meaningless without a key! Not every railway in Germany is electrified, so I presume the colour means a percentage of track or something. Irrelevant in any case, except to prove that our infrastructure is lacking.

astrofool · 29-10-2010 4:24pm

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

were sligo to do that, and follow the US model, it would use it's local rates to cover it's own streets. And would hardly build, or need, a subway. Sligo may not even have a bus service - I dont know I have been, I know that Clonmel, where I have relatives - doesnt, nor does it need one - but it has a local private bus service. But that would be a minor expense and the local town councils look after the same roads anyway.

Following the American ( and German/ Federal) model, counties would run regional R-roads but the NRA would run the N and M roads, and the federal government would pay for the intercity trains. So, Sligo would have good access anyway, County Sligo's roads might decline in usability, or cost more, but there is a strong case that many boreens in Ireland need never have been taken in charge by the councils. If they are a road for private dwellings, and there are other routes, they can go private.

So sligo will see little or no increase in tax. Dubliners will have to fund Dublin Bus, the Parks, the Metro, and the DART and whatever subsidy the Luas gets. Dubliners will see their taxes rise, not the citizens of SLigo.

But this is off topic to the major debate- this subway is needed, and desirable.

Dubliners already fund the parks/metro/dart along with the Sligo buses, the luas is profit making.

Is your point that Dublin isn't sending masses of money to the rest of the country?

donkey balls · 29-10-2010 4:35pm

Any one ever hear of Southend airport? from memory it is about about 30 mins drive south of Stanstead airport just off the M11,It's a small airport compared to Dub yet a private company who i cant stand is willing to build a rail line to the centre of London.

UK LISTED company Stobart yesterday said that it has agreed to make an investment in Aer Arann, a move that should allow the Irish airline to exit examinership.
This will give the company a “small stake” in Aer Arann in the form of a convertible preference share.
The British transport and logistics group said it would not get involved in the day-to-day management of the business.
It is understood that current owner, Galway businessman Pádraig Ó Céidigh will continue to be Aer Arann’s majority shareholder and the management team, led by chief executive Paul Schutz, will remain in place.
The total investment in Aer Arann could top €4 million, according to sources.
This would be used for working capital and to repay creditors of the airline.
Stobart said yesterday that it had signed a five-year operating agreement with Aer Arann to use London Southend Airport for flights starting in March 2011.
This will involve Stobart investing €2.5 million to incentivise and market Aer Arann’s operations from Southend.
Stobart owns Southend airport and is developing a rail connection to Liverpool Street station in London.
This will have a journey time of 50 minutes.
Stobart now wants to promote Southend as a feeder airport for London in a similar way to Stansted Airport which is used by Ryanair.
In its statement yesterday, Stobart said it expects Aer Arann, over time, to carry up to 300,000 passengers a year on routes to Southend.
It is also possible that Aer Arann could look to develop routes to continental Europe from Southend.
It is not clear which Irish airports Aer Arann would use for its flights to London Southend.
Stobart also wants to develop air freight services between Ireland and the UK with Aer Arann.
The High Court yesterday extended the examinership at Aer Arann until October 22nd.
This allows the examiner, Grant Thornton’s Michael McAteer, time to finalise a scheme of arrangement with creditors, who are owed about €18 million.
Aer Arann’s creditors include Allied Irish Banks, the Dublin Airport Authority, the Revenue Commissioners, and aircraft manufacturer ATR.
Stobart said its association with Aer Arann would strengthen its position in Ireland, where its turnover has grown to €40 million over the past two years. It operates a haulage and warehousing business here, with a facility in Dublin Port. Its website says there are 20,000 vehicle movements between Ireland and Britain each year.
Aer Arann was placed into examinership in August. It recorded losses of €6 million in the first seven months of this year and was in danger of running out of cash.

i forgot to put in the link
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/1012/1224280877528.html

cavedave · 29-10-2010 5:03pm

southsiderosie

Dublin HAS bus lanes in other parts of the city and they are still slow as hell during rush hour. And god help you if there is an accident or bad weather.
When there is a dedicated mass transit system, users know exactly how long it will take them to get from point A to point B give or take 5 minutes. It gets more cars off of the road, so when people do need to drive (say delivery trucks and the like) there is less traffic. It also tends to help cluster residential and commercial development; people like to work and live near mass transit stations.

All of this is true. But it ignores that autonomous cars do not have to be perfect they just have to be good enough to take a lot of the people away from a metro system.
If the metro system has a serious competitor it will not have the passanger numbers the business plan requires. A serious competitor would be taxis at half the current price?

The figures for a Manchester taxi driver are that her costs per year are

Manchester taxi costs
Vehicle cost 6000
Parts 3500
Maintance 4000
Petrol 4000 but ignore as these could be electric
Insurance 4500
Wage 25000 (about uk average wage)

about 40 thousand roughly half the cost of your taxi fair is the wages of the driver. For minibuses it is less of a percentage but still significant.

So a taxi fare will be about half the price it is now. Will demand for a metro be as high with taxis/minibuses this cheap?

If demand for the metro is lowered is it still justified spending the current cost on it? I agree we should have had a metro 10 years ago. That does not mean we will need one in ten years time though.

No one should buy thousands of books now for a universities print library as we can all see ebook readers will likely take over from the majority of printed books really soon. Just because autonomous cars sound a bit weird and scifi does not mean their effects should be discounted.

Cool Mo D · 29-10-2010 5:28pm

cavedave wrote: »

All of this is true. But it ignores that autonomous cars do not have to be perfect they just have to be good enough to take a lot of the people away from a metro system.
If the metro system has a serious competitor it will not have the passanger numbers the business plan requires. A serious competitor would be taxis at half the current price?

The figures for a Manchester taxi driver are that her costs per year are

Manchester taxi costs
Vehicle cost 6000
Parts 3500
Maintance 4000
Petrol 4000 but ignore as these could be electric
Insurance 4500
Wage 25000 (about uk average wage)

about 40 thousand roughly half the cost of your taxi fair is the wages of the driver. For minibuses it is less of a percentage but still significant.

So a taxi fare will be about half the price it is now. Will demand for a metro be as high with taxis/minibuses this cheap?

If demand for the metro is lowered is it still justified spending the current cost on it? I agree we should have had a metro 10 years ago. That does not mean we will need one in ten years time though.

No one should buy thousands of books now for a universities print library as we can all see ebook readers will likely take over from the majority of printed books really soon. Just because autonomous cars sound a bit weird and scifi does not mean their effects should be discounted.

I'm sorry, but this is pie-in-the-sky nonsense. For one thing, there is not a single autonomous car running regularly on a public road anywhere in the world. Seeing as entrusting vehicles with the potential to easily kill a person if they go a metre or so off course, or if their timing is seconds off, there will be huge regulatory resistance to running them even in the most gung-ho city, which Dublin is not. It will be at least 30 years before they are viable.
Look at computer controlled trains - the technology has been available and in practical use for over 50 years, but there is still no-one who wants to risk using it on a very complicated railway network - and a road system is infinitely more complex than that.

Also, your calculation for costs is very flawed - you assume vehicle costs for as AI controlled car is the same as a regular one - they will clearly be much, much higher, especially when they are new technology.

And autonomous cars will not take people away from a metro - unless you remove people controlled cars from the roads, they will just add to congestion, even if there are no people controlled cars on the road, you have provided no solid evidence that autonomous cars will practically reduce congestion. They would certainly be more efficient on a predictable road like a motorway - but around city streets where experienced humans can anticipate and predict dangers like people running out in traffic, they could well be worse, because the sheer overwhelming amount of relevant data an automated car would have to process about its surroundings in a city could force a super-conservative, slow driving style to avoid accidents.

cavedave · 29-10-2010 5:47pm

Cool Mo D

For one thing, there is not a single autonomous car running regularly on a public road anywhere in the world.

2008 Darpa challenge on a simulated city environment
2010 Google driving cars around san francisco
2020 ?

Once computers can do something well they tend to get really good really quickly. 1996 deep blue gets steam rolled by Kasparov in chess. 1997 deep blue squeks past Kasparov. 2010 your ipad could beat any player by a country mile.

Seeing as entrusting vehicles with the potential to easily kill a person if they go a metre or so off course, or if their timing is seconds off, there will be huge regulatory resistance to running them even in the most gung-ho city, which Dublin is not

This is true about the legal problems. But look at it the other way. If at the drink drive limit your 7 times more likely to crash than average what happens when one of these vehicles are 7 times less likely to crash than the average person. All of a sudden your relatively as bad as a drunk driver is now.

Also, your calculation for costs is very flawed - you assume vehicle costs for as AI controlled car is the same as a regular one - they will clearly be much, much higher, especially when they are new technology.

When new they will be very expensive but again the price of automated things tends to drop very fast. People do not trust computer run transport now. But as soon as another crazy guy takes over a plane or somesuch the computer will start looking safer

And autonomous cars will not take people away from a metro - unless you remove people controlled cars from the roads, they will just add to congestion,

Even if they just add to congestion that does not mean people will not use them. People factor in the cost of sitting in traffic and especially if they are free to watch videos this is quite low.

They would certainly be more efficient on a predictable road like a motorway - but around city streets where experienced humans can anticipate and predict dangers like people running out in traffic, they could well be worse, because the sheer overwhelming amount of relevant data an automated car would have to process about its surroundings in a city could force a super-conservative, slow driving style to avoid accidents.

They do not seem to drive this way now and on desert dirt tracks they seem to be faster than most drivers. We think driving is hard but fish wander through complex spaces of other fish and they are thick. Flocks of birds flying through cities seems to be as complicated as driving.

PanchoVilla · 29-10-2010 7:17pm

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

I think it's because some fella in Sligo hasn't passed his driving test.:pac:

No, because the public transportation network we have now in woefully mismanaged and much too expensive. What makes you think the metro will be any different? The problem is not the lack of public transport, the problem is the lack of planning and integration. The problem is our public transportation system being one of the most expensive in Europe, yet it's probably the worst when it comes to management and access.

I don't have a problem with the metro if it's actually needed, but it's not. The current transportation system should be fixed before spending billions on this project. Adequate car parks need to be built at Dart stations. Fares need to be brought down by cutting administration costs (huge salaries, bonuses, pensions, etc.). Thinking the metro will solve traffic problems is ridiculous if it will be managed by the same people that can't even get the buses and rails running efficiently.

Pete_Cavan · 29-10-2010 7:51pm

PanchoVilla wrote: »

No, because the public transportation network we have now in woefully mismanaged and much too expensive. What makes you think the metro will be any different?

The metro will be different because it will be run by a private company. The mismanagement in CIE, Iarnrod Eireann, Bus Eireann, Dublin Bus are state operated companies and, as with all state operated companies, could organise a pissup in a brewery. The Luas is privately operated and is currently the only rail line in the country that makes a profit, all the rest of the lines we have to subsidise.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the metro if it's actually needed, but it's not. The current transportation system should be fixed before spending billions on this project.

I assume you have detailed proposals on how this can be done, costings to back the proposals up and all can be implemented immediately? Dart Underground is what is planned to fix the current system but is years behind MN in terms of getting started. As MN is a PPP we wont have to pay anything for it until it is operational, so cutting in now does not actually save us the €3bn it will cost.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Thinking the metro will solve traffic problems is ridiculous if it will be managed by the same people that can't even get the buses and rails running efficiently.

It wont be managed by the same people, we will get one of the top rail operators from Europe to operate and maintain it for us for the next 30 years, thats the beauty of the PPP.

the bolt · 30-10-2010 12:26am

Spacedog wrote: »

why does it cost so much?, some underground train tunnels in use in london today were built in victorian times! it's not cutting edge technology were talking here.

dig a big trench, drop in a load of pre molded concrete tunnel lego style modules, cover it back over, lash a track and signal wires inside, you're done. no planning BS, no architect designs, no consultant contractor companies, just roll up the sleeves, grab a shovel and build the thing an a couple months for an honest wage. when yuo're done do it for every suburb of dublin and major city in the country. it's 2010 for christsake. if we can't have solar power and flying cars, the least I think our generation is an antique underground, hell, we built them for every city in england no bother, yet can't be arsed doing it for ourselves?

By the way, reclaiming the profits from the corrib gas given away to shell for free would pay for this project 50 time over.

lmao
have you done many of these tunnels yet,let me know when you have.

donkey balls · 30-10-2010 12:43am

eh the dublin port tunnel cant take these so called super trucks/trailers which are only a couple of inches bigger than a regular trailer:rolleyes:.
they also carry twice the payload and bbbb bertie wanted to ban them:mad: they are used more volumetric purpose than weight.
http://www.google.ie/images?hl=en&biw=1276&bih=587&q=double+deck+trailer&rlz=1R2GGLL_enIE372&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=SlvLTN-iMoqi4Qbfo7jcDA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQsAQwAA

Pete_Cavan · 30-10-2010 1:04pm

donkey balls wrote: »

eh the dublin port tunnel cant take these so called super trucks/trailers which are only a couple of inches bigger than a regular trailer:rolleyes:.
they also carry twice the payload and bbbb bertie wanted to ban them:mad: they are used more volumetric purpose than weight.
http://www.google.ie/images?hl=en&biw=1276&bih=587&q=double+deck+trailer&rlz=1R2GGLL_enIE372&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=SlvLTN-iMoqi4Qbfo7jcDA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQsAQwAA

90% of our roads cant take these trucks either so they should be banned from here. Most of our roads are not designed to take the weight of these trucks and allowing them here would cost us billions in road upgrades or billions in road maintenance in the long run. I dont see the Port Tunnel not being able to accommodate these trucks as a problem because the vast moajority of our roads cannot accommodate them for different reasons (too narrow, tight bends, pavements/surfaces not able to carry the weight).

donkey balls · 30-10-2010 1:52pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

90% of our roads cant take these trucks either so they should be banned from here. Most of our roads are not designed to take the weight of these trucks and allowing them here would cost us billions in road upgrades or billions in road maintenance in the long run. I dont see the Port Tunnel not being able to accommodate these trucks as a problem because the vast moajority of our roads cannot accommodate them for different reasons (too narrow, tight bends, pavements/surfaces not able to carry the weight).

As i have pointed out alot of these so called big trucks dont carry there max gross weight it is volumetric,Can you answer this question for me the grocery/electronics in your house how did they get to the stores and also the petrol in your car?

oppenheimer1 · 30-10-2010 2:30pm

donkey balls wrote: »

As i have pointed out alot of these so called big trucks dont carry there max gross weight it is volumetric,Can you answer this question for me the grocery/electronics in your house how did they get to the stores and also the petrol in your car?

But there are other bridges and structures in the country they wouldn't fit under. We are not the only country to have a height restriction.

Pete_Cavan · 30-10-2010 2:37pm

donkey balls wrote: »

As i have pointed out alot of these so called big trucks dont carry there max gross weight it is volumetric,Can you answer this question for me the grocery/electronics in your house how did they get to the stores and also the petrol in your car?

They were brought to the store by smaller trucks that do not take up more than the width of more than one standard traffic lane, can travel to a reasonable speed because they can take the bends on our twisty roads and do not destroy our road surfaces which are not designed to take the weight of super trucks. Super trucks have no place on our roads and have no place in the Port Tunnel either.

donkey balls · 30-10-2010 2:38pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But there are other bridges and structures in the country they wouldn't fit under. We are not the only country to have a height restriction.

Yep there is low bridges where even a standard size trailer wont fit,Most of these double deck trailers are used on main trunking routes Dub-Cork etc,Afaik some of the nordic countries have height restrictions what i am trying to get across is that these so called mega trucks actually cut down on another truck having to be on the road and saves fuel/emisions etc.

donkey balls · 30-10-2010 2:40pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

They were brought to the store by smaller trucks that do not take up more than the width of more than one standard traffic lane, can travel to a reasonable speed because they can take the bends on our twisty roads and do not destroy our road surfaces which are not designed to take the weight of super trucks. Super trucks have no place on our roads and have no place in the Port Tunnel either.

Can you answer this for me what size in width is a super truck compared to a small truck? and what is your definetion of a small truck.

oppenheimer1 · 30-10-2010 2:49pm

donkey balls wrote: »

Yep there is low bridges where even a standard size trailer wont fit,Most of these double deck trailers are used on main trunking routes Dub-Cork etc,Afaik some of the nordic countries have height restrictions what i am trying to get across is that these so called mega trucks actually cut down on another truck having to be on the road and saves fuel/emisions etc.

I agree, but generally these trucks are owned by foreign companies bringing imported goods into Ireland. They do not pay road tax in Ireland, yet their weight can cause severe damage to even well built motorways, thus passing the cost onto the taxpayer whilst saving the company fuel costs. We don't have weigh bridges so while they may carry light bulky items I can guarantee you they would be overladen given half a chance.

Pete_Cavan · 30-10-2010 2:55pm

donkey balls wrote: »

Can you answer this for me what size in width is a super truck compared to a small truck? and what is your definetion of a small truck.

Why dont you tell me the dimensions of a super truck, you are the one who brought them up by saying they dont fit in the Port Tunnel. I was talking about the trucks you referred which dont fit in the Port Tunnel. And I didnt mention anything about small trucks so I dont have to provide a definition. I said smaller trucks, smaller relative to the big trucks you mentioned which dont fit in the Port Tunnel. I have merely referred to the size of truck you initially brought up and then spoke of smallER ones, prehaps you should be more specific about the trucks you are talking about before asking anyone else to provide dimensions/definitions.

donkey balls · 30-10-2010 3:24pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I agree, but generally these trucks are owned by foreign companies bringing imported goods into Ireland. They do not pay road tax in Ireland, yet their weight can cause severe damage to even well built motorways, thus passing the cost onto the taxpayer whilst saving the company fuel costs. We don't have weigh bridges so while they may carry light bulky items I can guarantee you they would be overladen given half a chance.

I have yet to see a foreign registered so called mega truck operate here and if they do there is nothing we can do as there within the EU,As for over weight trucks they would be pulled by either the French or UK authorities before getting here.
The likes of An Post use them so do the likes of Tesco and other retailers&transport companies oh and there is weigh bridges here even mobile ones that can be set up by the RSA/Gardai traffic corp.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Why dont you tell me the dimensions of a super truck, you are the one who brought them up by saying they dont fit in the Port Tunnel. I was talking about the trucks you referred which dont fit in the Port Tunnel. And I didnt mention anything about small trucks so I dont have to provide a definition. I said smaller trucks, smaller relative to the big trucks you mentioned which dont fit in the Port Tunnel. I have merely referred to the size of truck you initially brought up and then spoke of smallER ones, prehaps you should be more specific about the trucks you are talking about before asking anyone else to provide dimensions/definitions.

First of all you responded to my post that the goods you use on a dailly basis including petrol/diesel etc are delivered by smaller trucks that dont take up more space on the road or an extra lane.
all trucks with certain exceptions(wide loads) are a maximum of 2.5 mtrs in width as for the height between a so called normal trailer and these super ones is about 12" the port tunnel is about 3" to small for the trucks.

astrofool · 30-10-2010 5:04pm

donkey balls wrote: »

As i have pointed out alot of these so called big trucks dont carry there max gross weight it is volumetric,Can you answer this question for me the grocery/electronics in your house how did they get to the stores and also the petrol in your car?

The continent tunnels and roads have the same restrictions, "super trucks" are such a small % of trucks, and for so specialised a use, that it wouldn't matter that the port tunnel can't take them, as they would have figured out a route that works for the one or two trucks that need to take it, before they even arrive here.

Anyway, this is getting widely off topic.

donkey balls · 30-10-2010 5:15pm

astrofool wrote: »

The continent tunnels and roads have the same restrictions, "super trucks" are such a small % of trucks, and for so specialised a use, that it wouldn't matter that the port tunnel can't take them, as they would have figured out a route that works for the one or two trucks that need to take it, before they even arrive here.

Anyway, this is getting widely off topic.

True back on topic i wonder did the likes of the DAA when building T2 and upgrading T1 put anything in place to accomadate a metro system,Me thinks not:rolleyes:.

AlekSmart · 30-10-2010 5:41pm

True back on topic i wonder did the likes of the DAA when building T2 and upgrading T1 put anything in place to accomadate a metro system,Me thinks not

Probably why the Dept of Transport and the Dept of the Environment failed to provide anti-traveller defences around many of it`s weighbridge facilities built in a flurry of activity a few years back.

This rather elemental ommission led to many of the weighbridges falling into a state of disrepair.....Even the one on the Naas Road adjacent to Baldonnell appears to no longer be functional.....:)

Overheal · 30-10-2010 9:37pm

You guys say Mega Truck and you just mean a Semi, correct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-trailer_truck

Overheal · 30-10-2010 9:43pm

They were brought to the store by smaller trucks that do not take up more than the width of more than one standard traffic lane, can travel to a reasonable speed because they can take the bends on our twisty roads and do not destroy our road surfaces which are not designed to take the weight of super trucks. Super trucks have no place on our roads and have no place in the Port Tunnel either.

If you say so. Have your cake and eat it too. Keep Ireland's idealic windy country roads and it's idealic 19th century economy. Take your pick: You either need Heavy Goods rail or you need Heavy Goods motorways. And Tunnels to Ports that - generally - deal in Heavy Goods. Shipping containers. That sort of thing. It puts an unrealistic amount of burden on middle-manning if individual containers cant just be dropped onto a Semi-Trailer and rolled off, but instead has to be broken down on location into a smaller carrier in order to reach some obscure destination down a windy road and through the trees.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport

jd · 30-10-2010 10:08pm

Overheal wrote: »

You guys say Mega Truck and you just mean a Semi, correct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-trailer_truck

I think they are talking about trucks with supercube containers

Container Type, Internal dimensions, Door aperture, dimensions, Capacity, Tare weight,
Dimensions in cms L W H W H cu ft Kilos
20ft NOR (insulated) 543x228x215 228x218 900 2900
20ft General Purpose 589x235x238 234x227 1150 2200
40ft General Purpose 1205x234x234 234x227 2350 3700
40ft High Cube 1205x234x268 234x258 2650 3000
45ft Super Cube 1358x234x269 234x258 3000 3900

Overheal · 30-10-2010 10:12pm

jd wrote: »

I think they are talking about trucks with supercube containers

Container Type, Internal dimensions, Door aperture, dimensions, Capacity, Tare weight,
Dimensions in cms L W H W H cu ft Kilos
20ft NOR (insulated) 543x228x215 228x218 900 2900
20ft General Purpose 589x235x238 234x227 1150 2200
40ft General Purpose 1205x234x234 234x227 2350 3700
40ft High Cube 1205x234x268 234x258 2650 3000
45ft Super Cube 1358x234x269 234x258 3000 3900

STOP MAKING WORDS UP! You mean an ISO Container, an Inter-modal Shipping Container, yes? This thing!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container

"Supercube" :pac: edit: well ok, "High Cube". Can we call it a 45ft container?

Out of interest though what is the upper limit on irish roads? are the regular 20' and 40' containers able to be lorry-hauled or does it all have to be broken down into non-ISO trucks? Because I notice for example with regard to the port tunnel the only difference between a 20' and 45' container in terms of height is about 12".

jd · 30-10-2010 10:29pm

Overheal wrote: »

STOP MAKING WORDS UP! You mean an ISO Container, an Inter-modal Shipping Container, yes? This thing!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container

"Supercube" :pac: edit: well ok, "High Cube". Can we call it a 45ft container?

I'm not making words up - this is the term that was used when there were debates over certain trucks not being able to use the port tunnel.

These High/Super Cube containers are higher than regular shipping containers

astrofool · 31-10-2010 9:52pm

To end the off topicness, read the paper on the cost and implications of raising the height of the tunnel: http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/6008-0.pdf

Also, do a check on major european tunnels. Mont blanc tunnel (major european artery) is only 4.35m high, the dutch Western Scheldt Tunnel only goes to 4.3m.

The Dublin port tunnel is actually 4.9m high, but limited to 4.65m for safety. Surely this can be split into a seperate thread.

Corsendonk · 01-11-2010 12:25pm

This is the metro to Swords Thread? And the not how big is my container? Someone did mention the lack of a trucking forum here to me so perhaps when they reopen the forums applications all the posts about containers and port tunnel can be moved there.

Is Swords not worthy of a subway?

jmayo · 01-11-2010 12:57pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

90% of our roads cant take these trucks either so they should be banned from here. Most of our roads are not designed to take the weight of these trucks and allowing them here would cost us billions in road upgrades or billions in road maintenance in the long run. I dont see the Port Tunnel not being able to accommodate these trucks as a problem because the vast moajority of our roads cannot accommodate them for different reasons (too narrow, tight bends, pavements/surfaces not able to carry the weight).

This is exactly the type of short sighted planning we have in this country that has us where we are.
I rememeber when the M50 was being built.
It was evident before the section south of Tallaght was completed that there should be three lanes, yet they completed the section to Sandyford and beyond as only two lanes, only to have to come back and rework it into three.
Then they build a port tunnel that should have been capable of handling possible future traffic.
No of course not, lets build something that was planned 10 years ago.
F***ing pathetic.
The tunnel should have been built so as to accomodate these trucks.
Yes they could be banned if the rest of the primary road network could not cope with them, but at least in the future the tunnel would be able to handle them.
Instead if we upgrade the rest of the motorway network we are stuck with tunnel not fit for use.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But there are other bridges and structures in the country they wouldn't fit under. We are not the only country to have a height restriction.

And is that a reason to build infrastructure that is not future proofed in some way ?

Anyway back onto topic.
I think the metro North is going to be waste of money we do not have short term.
Yes in long run it will pay off, but in short term we need infrastructure projects that will employ high numbers, add to communities throughout the country and bring more immediate benefits to a bigger number of people.
This would mean building schools, prisons, local primary care clinics in areas old hospitals shutting, etc.

We desperately need new prisons, no not one but a few, to handle our growing criminal classes, be it the drug gangs or the more well connected types that frequented the K club or The Shelborne.

A 5 Billion Metro subway to Swords!

Comments