Transport 21 is finally officially dead

Amtmann · 26-06-2011 7:35pm #1

D.L.R. · 26-06-2011 9:12pm

Great to see anything Fianna Foul put a hand to being quashed/cancelled/destroyed. Another aspect of a failed vision in the bin where it belongs.

Judgement Day · 26-06-2011 9:23pm

Was it ever alive?

Brian CivilEng · 27-06-2011 3:53pm

I remember as a bright eyed and bushy tailed graduate engineer in 2005, listening to the announcement of Transport 21 on my headphones in the office thinking about how that guaranteed me at least 10 more years of work. Ah, the innocence of youth.

OurLadyofKnock · 27-06-2011 6:44pm

The picture of the kid holding the sheet of paper is perfect. All he needs is a box of crayons.

How much did all this cost in terms of marketing, CGI, glossy broucheurs... It beggars belief.

I recall watching the press conference for OnTrack 2000 with Mary what's her name from the Midlands. At the gig they handed along with the expensive printed materials all the attendees a 00 Scale Lima model of a Mark 3 carraige in IE colours. I counted that they handed out about 50 of these things and half of them handed to civil servants from various departments in the room.

I went down to Marks Models on Hawkings Street and they were 20 Pounds each. That worked out to 1,000 Pounds spent of gimmicks that were either thrown in the bin or handed to some civil servant's kid to smash into his Lego Star Wars X-Fighter.

At the time I was thinking this was such a waste and the absolute pinnicle of all that was wrong with Fianna Fail, Ireland, Irish Rail and well our poltical and media struture. How wrong I was. They were to go on waste so much money though could of built a couple of Luas lines easy.

We need a revolution.

-Corkie- · 27-06-2011 7:32pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Was it ever alive?

Good point. Transport 21 promised us the Atlantic corridor from Letterkenny to Waterford. There is a sizeable chunk of that missing, all we can hope for is the new plan in 2012.

veryangryman · 27-06-2011 8:06pm

Very sad. Country in pseudo post-apocolyptic state

Fair play Bertie. Enjoy your Bass this weekend

Plowman · 28-06-2011 10:47am

This post has been deleted.

bk · 28-06-2011 11:32am

Reading the NTAs 2030 plan for Dublin, it is clear that Metro North and Dart Underground are vital to the development of Dublin.

So even if they have to be delayed by a few years, hopefully they will be eventually completed.

However I worry that instead the government will want to look like they are doing something and will instead do some stupid, hair brained scheme like the airport dart spur or Luas BXD up O'Connell St and thus make it much harder to do MN and DU later, for no real benefit.

D'Peoples Voice · 28-06-2011 1:31pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Great to see anything Fianna Foul put a hand to being quashed/cancelled/destroyed. Another aspect of a failed vision in the bin where it belongs.

Clearly you're of a younger age than most of us here
if you think that such plans are of politicians making.
Why do you think that the Department of Transport has employee numbers into the hundreds, or why Julie O'Neill the person in charge of the Department was on a salary not too dissimilar to the Minister?

Why because it is the permanent Government(civil service) that comes up with these plans......not some vacuous politician!
Like them or hate the plans, a lot of though went into such plans, yes, we know the politicians try and claim the credit for them at the launch, but to the vast majority of people over a certain age, we know the extent of their input!
So please don't let politics get in the way of a plan for a better Ireland. :mad:

Neworder79 · 28-06-2011 5:20pm

Can we outsource all design and planning while we're at it, that way something decent might actually get built in within reasonable time and cost!

paulm17781 · 28-06-2011 10:33pm

Neworder79 wrote: »

Can we outsource all design and planning while we're at it, that way something decent might actually get built in within reasonable time and cost!

No, politicians use things like this to get votes. I remember DWCommuter saying at the T21 launch that it was nothing but a vote grabbing excercise. I don't think I said it to him at the time but I thought he was just being a pessimist, how wrong I was. This is why they're always delayed etc. It suits the politicians...

Aard · 29-06-2011 12:22am

I hope the next NDP lasts more than 5 years.

I also hope the NSS gets chopped up and fed to the pigs.

DWCommuter · 29-06-2011 1:09am

T21 is dead?

As predicted. History tends to repeat itself.

D.L.R. · 29-06-2011 1:20am

D'Peoples Voice wrote: »

Clearly you're of a younger age than most of us here
if you think that such plans are of politicians making.
Why do you think that the Department of Transport has employee numbers into the hundreds, or why Julie O'Neill the person in charge of the Department was on a salary not too dissimilar to the Minister?

Why because it is the permanent Government(civil service) that comes up with these plans......not some vacuous politician!
Like them or hate the plans, a lot of though went into such plans, yes, we know the politicians try and claim the credit for them at the launch, but to the vast majority of people over a certain age, we know the extent of their input!
So please don't let politics get in the way of a plan for a better Ireland. :mad:

Um... yes plans are always on the table, but its the politicians who decide what plans to take forward. It is they who are at the wheel. And central to the FF vision of national development was a failed policy called

DECENTRALISATION

.. its this very policy which has led to us having 1,000km of motorway all over the country. Some very much needed (M1, M8), but some very questionable (M3, M9). And some delivered in a downright incompetent, almost criminally expensive manner (M50)

In the meantime while all this road building was going on our urban public transport has remained among the very worst in the European Union.

Don't tell me politics doesn't matter when it comes to transport planning. And next time you want to engage in debating these points, how about you leave out the patronising tone, cheers.

dynamick · 29-06-2011 11:16am

haha I'm less cynical than the rest of you. I think Irish transport is a million times better now than a decade ago.

T21 is being rebranded. New ERA transport maybe?

I think T21 achieved a lot and that it was correct to announce multi-annual project and funding plans and then to have public debates about them. While I would have prioritised public transport over roads projects, I can see that the overcapacity motorway network has benefits and will help the economy. Rail services are improved on most routes, clockface Cork-Dublin, newer trains, longer more frequent DARTs. Improved QBCs & busgate & luas extensions.

The dublin bus network is finally being redesigned after decades (with mixed results). RTPI for BE and Dublin Bus has arrived. Integrated ticketing really late but finally arriving. Bike use up. Road fatalities halved.

M3, M9 and Ennis-Athenry are clearly the worst projects completed and it's worth measuring their costs and ongoing losses against the successful projects that could have been built in their stead.

The rail megaprojects didn't make it but they've been brought through extended planning foreplay and will be delivered in the next decade no doubt. And Luas BXD will surely be built in the coming 3-4 years: a great project for the city centre and inner suburbs.

planning worked out way worse than transport and no public transport system can solve the dispersal pattern we have chosen.

anyhow have to go now to cycle my half-price, subsidised bike down to put it on a DART

Brian CivilEng · 29-06-2011 3:04pm

Neworder79 wrote: »

Can we outsource all design and planning while we're at it, that way something decent might actually get built in within reasonable time and cost!

Oi, design and planning was something we got quite good at in Ireland over the past decade when it comes to road building. The majority of the inter-urban network was brought in on time and under budget. Unfortunately all the expertise built up in delivering these roads has been put out to pasture, instead of trying to apply it to other areas.

The entire cost of the inter-urban motorway network came in at around €8bn. Not bad value at all.

Neworder79 · 29-06-2011 4:38pm

Oi, design and planning was something we got quite good at in Ireland over the past decade when it comes to road building.

True that was a flippant comment, and very unfair to the NRA who did deliver on/ahead of time and good quality motorways in general, aided by the PPP companies expertise.

My comment was in relation to the rail aspect of T21 being discussed earlier. Hope I'm proven wrong but when I look at the hugely complex metro plans I don't have the same faith in the RPA/NTA or whatever ever quango is in charge of delivering major rail projects.

I think the taxpayer could have gotten better value in terms of progress had aspects of those projects been outsourced. There seems to be no accountability or measurement of progress once big projects disappear into the civil service either. Look at integrated ticketing disaster.

These are complex projects with many of vested interests involved. Private sector is not above interference either but they do have imperative to deliver to spec and cost on time at risk of penalty, something political appointed committees don't IMO. Value and decisive action are not words often associated with our civil service.

transylman · 30-06-2011 12:06pm

abitofacomedian wrote: »

The majority of the inter-urban network was brought in on time and under budget.

No. It was supposed to have been finished in 2006.

The entire cost of the inter-urban motorway network came in at around €8bn. Not bad value at all.

Hold your backslapping for a minute. The country has been running a deficit of around €20bn per year for the last 3 years and pumped around €50bn into the banks. Imagine what kind of transport network that would have brought us.

Brian CivilEng · 30-06-2011 12:38pm

transylman wrote: »

No. It was supposed to have been finished in 2006.

What was delivered in 2010 was of a much higher standard than what was promised for 2006. Originally we were to get a series of by-passes patched on to upgrades of current roads. Instead we got brand new corridors of motorway standard between Dublin and the other cities. When the specs changed, the end date was also changed. To have expected otherwise is like eating out in a restaurant instead of McDonalds, but complaining when your food didn't arrive 60 seconds after ordering it.

transylman wrote: »

Hold your backslapping for a minute. The country has been running a deficit of around €20bn per year for the last 3 years and pumped around €50bn into the banks. Imagine what kind of transport network that would have brought us.

Which makes the fact that for €8bn invested over 10 years has given us the motorway network we have even more impressive. I choose to celebrate our successes, they are few and far between but this is one of them.

A fraction of that €50bn would go a long way towards giving us an even greater transport network, including a much needed boost to public transport. But it is not going to happen. However our current situation is infinitely better than what we had even ten years ago, and people need to appreciate that.

Brian CivilEng · 30-06-2011 2:22pm

OK I had a look at the NDP 2000 - 2006 and it does seem to be different from the Road Needs Study on what it promises for the inter-urbans. The NDP says

National Primary Roads: The development strategy for national primary roads will include:
• the development in their entirety by 2006 of the following routes to motorway/improved
dual carriageway standard
• Dublin to Border (M1);
• Galway to Dublin (N4/N6);
• Cork to Dublin (N8);
• Limerick to Dublin (N7);
• Waterford to Dublin (N9) (road type and route to be further evaluated).

By 2010 we got all of this and more. Whereas the NDP seems to state quite optimistically that all this should be delivered by 2006, the majority of it was in operation by then. On an international scale what we achieved was quite impressive, from 93km of motorway/hqdc in 1999 to approx 900km of motorway and 300km of hqdc ten years later. Not everything in this country over the past ten years was a failure.

D.L.R. · 30-06-2011 5:58pm

abitofacomedian wrote: »

OK I had a look at the NDP 2000 - 2006 and it does seem to be different from the Road Needs Study on what it promises for the inter-urbans. The NDP says

By 2010 we got all of this and more. Whereas the NDP seems to state quite optimistically that all this should be delivered by 2006, the majority of it was in operation by then. On an international scale what we achieved was quite impressive, from 93km of motorway/hqdc in 1999 to approx 900km of motorway and 300km of hqdc ten years later. Not everything in this country over the past ten years was a failure.

Sheer mileage doesn't make it impressive, since we don't need 30% of it.

Waste. Of. Money.

pajunior · 01-07-2011 11:42am

D.L.R. wrote: »

Sheer mileage doesn't make it impressive, since we don't need 30% of it.

Waste. Of. Money.

Have to disagree, the roads are one of the few things we actually gained from the boom.

veryangryman · 01-07-2011 3:51pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Sheer mileage doesn't make it impressive, since we don't need 30% of it.

Waste. Of. Money.

Where praytell did you invent that figure from? What motorways do you think were a waste?

If your referring to the M3, its a commuter route and badly needed. M9 in its entirety id be a little more sceptical, but certainly needed as far as Carlow.
That leaves for me just the M9 south of Carlow (much less than 30% of the MW network)

Businesses can do business better and quicker, the country has gained competitiveness, journey times for tourists and commuters alike have gone down and far more importantly, lives have been saved

Recession or not, the motorways are a joy to behold and one of the few reasons im ok to pay taxes.

D.L.R. · 02-07-2011 9:12am

veryangryman wrote: »

Where praytell did you invent that figure from? What motorways do you think were a waste?

If your referring to the M3, its a commuter route and badly needed. M9 in its entirety id be a little more sceptical, but certainly needed as far as Carlow.
That leaves for me just the M9 south of Carlow (much less than 30% of the MW network)

Businesses can do business better and quicker, the country has gained competitiveness, journey times for tourists and commuters alike have gone down and far more importantly, lives have been saved

Recession or not, the motorways are a joy to behold and one of the few reasons im ok to pay taxes.

Its not so much individual routes than the network as a whole.

With 1,000km of Motorway (what we've built), all our cities could now be interconnected in a web of motorway. Small midland towns don't need motorways, they just need good, safe local roads.

I don't expect universal agreement here, as its a question of how you view a national spatial strategy.

Personally I subscribe to the the idea of dense urban areas with intensive public transport as a priority, rather than the unsustainable, low density commuter sprawl that the tiger era govt sleepwalked into.

And thats exactly why I don't agree that Navan (pop <25k) merits a 50km taxpayer-subsidised motorway.

Aard · 02-07-2011 12:25pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

And thats exactly why I don't agree that Navan (pop <25k) merits a 50km taxpayer-subsidised motorway.

Out of all the odd spatial planning decisions lately (at-grade non-connecting light rail, the idea of dozens of hubs/gateways, etc), the 28% population increase for Navan (already a large town) was perhaps the most baffling. It didn't have the rail/road connections needed by such an increase, and as such needed them built. I guess the idea was for a commuter town for Dublin, but there would have been better candidates. Even if the 5,500 or so people had been spread out among the other towns in Meath, it'd have been better. If it had been divvied up between Enfield, Kilcock, Gormanstown, Laytown, and of course Navan itself, there'd have been a better spread of people, the use of existing rail/road would have been maximised, and we'd not have been left with the stupid consequence of having to provide expensive infrastructure in a place that wouldn't have needed it immediately if it had grown at a reasonable pace.

In fact, it's not just Navan. Look at Ashbourne (M2) and Ratoath (not sure which motorway it wants, so it's smack in the middle of them both. Something is rotten in the county of Meath.

Pete_Cavan · 02-07-2011 2:51pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Sheer mileage doesn't make it impressive, since we don't need 30% of it.

Waste. Of. Money.

For me, the real waste of money in building the motorway network was down to the practice of building motorways that shadowed the existing national primary routes - for example, the M2 and M3 could have been incorporated into one motorway. Instead, FF wanted the network to meander all over the shop to hit as many one-horse towns as possible in order to pick up a few extra votes.

As regards Transport21, I dont think we will see the like of it again. I reckon the next NDP will focus on energy and communications infrastructure, rather than transport infrastructure.

L1011 · 02-07-2011 3:59pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

With 1,000km of Motorway (what we've built), all our cities could now be interconnected in a web of motorway. Small midland towns don't need motorways, they just need good, safe local roads.

How? The vast majority of our motorways ARE linking our cities. The midlands just happen to be in the way.

D.L.R. · 02-07-2011 7:56pm

MYOB wrote: »

How? The vast majority of our motorways ARE linking our cities.

Only to Dublin, not eachother.

L1011 · 02-07-2011 8:06pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Only to Dublin, not eachother.

...so what motorways would you get rid of to provide the other links, as you claim could be done?

Your figures don't come CLOSE to adding up.

D.L.R. · 02-07-2011 8:16pm

MYOB wrote: »

...so what motorways would you get rid of to provide the other links, as you claim could be done?

Your figures don't come CLOSE to adding up.

Forget figures, just listen to what I'm saying.

Its too late now anyway, but with the same mileage as we now have, we could have built a more efficient, strategic network which connected not only Dublin, but ALL cities to eachother.

We slavishly followed all the N routes instead of, for instance, routing one or two major trunks to the south and west, with multiple spurs connecting the cities. (A map would convey this easier than verbalising it)

Suffice to say, the network as it stands, well its nice and all, and certainly an improvement on our cart track pre 1990s network, but is by no means worthy of the lavish praise some give it. It was over-cooked, while other things were under cooked.

L1011 · 02-07-2011 8:27pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Its too late now anyway, but with the same mileage as we now have, we could have built a more efficient, strategic network which connected not only Dublin, but ALL cities to eachother.=

Maps please.

Its not possible.

Remember to include at the very least DC bypasses of Dunshauglin and Navan, too. And reduce your mileage for the higher cost of D3/D4 on core sections.

markpb · 02-07-2011 8:51pm

MYOB wrote: »

Maps please. Its not possible.

Motorways should connect cities, nothing else. Why was the N2 built to motorway standard, why was the M3 built at all? What cities exist along those routes? They were built to pander to the sprawl and solve a short term problem with a long term solution.

D'Peoples Voice · 03-07-2011 12:07am

markpb wrote: »

They were built to pander to the sprawl and solve a short term problem with a long term solution.

ssssshhh, you'll have people talking about having the national children's hospital for the next 100 odd years on the edge of the M50 because there is no transport links to temple street in the short-term.

Amtmann · 03-07-2011 12:47am

MYOB wrote: »

Maps please.

Its not possible.

Remember to include at the very least DC bypasses of Dunshauglin and Navan, too. And reduce your mileage for the higher cost of D3/D4 on core sections.

There was this proposal a few years ago:

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Why do I need three different ways to get from Cork to Dublin? Surely one is enough?

If you were to start from scratch, for the same money (or possibly less), this could have been built:

Aard · 03-07-2011 12:58am

In Ireland, motorways are just diverted National roads. It's not like most other places where you can plough them through wherever and slap a new 'M' number on them. That's why we have M2 and M3. It's why the Limerick bypass is M7 and N18. The biggest deviation was the M6 past Loughrea.

DWCommuter · 03-07-2011 1:19am

I love the inter urbans, but YES it could have been done more efficiently and had a better spread of spending to upgrade more roads. The shadowing of N routes baffled me. These motorways are empty most of the time.

As for T21, I sat in Dublin Castle 6 years ago and knew that those in attendance were being fed copious amounts of bull****. For me, the sad part was the acceptance. Recession has nothing to do with its demise. T21 was the greatest con trick of all time.

Irish transport planning is way beyond comprehension and is more akin to the Twilight Zone that anything else.

murphaph · 03-07-2011 12:05pm

We must also remember that Ireland largely missed out on the gradual upgrading/bypassing of trunk roads to (up to D2AP etc.) that happened in the UK BEFORE they even started building motorways. Our motorways are not just intercity links in reality, they are in many instances the first bypass of a town. Therefore the notion that we could have saved x amount by ignoring the pre-existing N road network and building something purely designed to link the main cities, totally ignores the fact that these towns like Port Laoise, Athlone etc. would have all required bypasses (albeit not D2M standard ones) to be built in addition to the "offline" motorways.

When the interurbans are fully complete (they aren't yet of course) you'll have multiple routes from say Cork, Shannon (even Limerick) or Waterford to Dublin. A major incident on the M8 would not cripple the network, there would be enough redundancy in it to allow traffic to head via the N25/N9 or N25/N30/N11 to reach Dublin. This is how the Germans do it-they build (typically) D2 motorway but build a denser network of it. The UK in comparison has a few key routes that just get widened and an incident on one of them can bring the house down.

We actually had the means to deliver these roads AND DART Underground AND Metro North. We just didn't. We preferred to elect a government of tax cuts, social welfare and public sector pay increases and general cack-handedness, rather than one which would capitalise on our GENUINE export led boom of the 1990s.

L1011 · 03-07-2011 12:37pm

Tremelo wrote: »

There was this proposal a few years ago:

How does that connect Waterford to Galway in any way efficiently? Or Galway to Belfast

The route mileage we've built could not have been reshaped to what DLR seems to think it could.

D.L.R. · 03-07-2011 7:11pm

murphaph wrote: »

Our motorways are not just intercity links in reality, they are in many instances the first bypass of a town. Therefore the notion that we could have saved x amount by ignoring the pre-existing N road network and building something purely designed to link the main cities, totally ignores the fact that these towns like Port Laoise, Athlone etc. would have all required bypasses (albeit not D2M standard ones) to be built in addition to the "offline" motorways.

Unlike say France or Germany. They use motorways to link cities, and their small towns like Portlaoise get modest s2 bypasses if needs be.

murphaph wrote: »

When the interurbans are fully complete (they aren't yet of course) you'll have multiple routes from say Cork, Shannon (even Limerick) or Waterford to Dublin. A major incident on the M8 would not cripple the network, there would be enough redundancy in it to allow traffic to head via the N25/N9 or N25/N30/N11 to reach Dublin. This is how the Germans do it-they build (typically) D2 motorway but build a denser network of it. The UK in comparison has a few key routes that just get widened and an incident on one of them can bring the house down.

Yeah.."when". Redundancy isn't so important that we needed to pour all our resorces into the huge network it requires, as we did, and still are. They have to be maintained too!

murphaph wrote: »

We actually had the means to deliver these roads AND DART Underground AND Metro North. We just didn't. We preferred to elect a government of tax cuts, social welfare and public sector pay increases and general cack-handedness, rather than one which would capitalise on our GENUINE export led boom of the 1990s.

What's this "we" business?

Seriously though, I agree with that analysis.

I think that, despite MYOB's insisting, we could have built a smarter network as I've said above, which would've freed up resources for the Underground lines.

However, I guess it just wasn't politically possible with FF in power, and their god awful decentralisation mantra, and their large midland support base. Dublin based multi billion euro projects just weren't popular, even if they were the best thing for the country. Lesson? Don't let culchies run the country!

In summing up, Ireland doesn't have an amazing motorway network - Dublin and the midlands do. Cork, Limerick, Galway & Waterford missed out and trade between them will remain stifled for many more years. Don't hold yer breath for the M20 or the M18. Ireland will remain a one-city state.

Amtmann · 03-07-2011 7:37pm

MYOB wrote: »

How does that connect Waterford to Galway in any way efficiently? Or Galway to Belfast

The route mileage we've built could not have been reshaped to what DLR seems to think it could.

It doesn't. You'd still need a Type 2 DC between Waterford and Limerick. But it might have been a good alternative to the present motorway network.

Pete_Cavan · 03-07-2011 8:29pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

However, I guess it just wasn't politically possible with FF in power, and their god awful decentralisation mantra, and their large midland support base. Dublin based multi billion euro projects just weren't popular, even if they were the best thing for the country. Lesson? Don't let culchies run the country!

Thank God we had a good honest Dublin man in Bertie at the helm to capitalise on the greatest period of economic growth in our countries history and reject pandering to popular opinion in order to steer us towards a sustainable future.

DWCommuter · 04-07-2011 1:08am

Tremelo wrote: »

There was this proposal a few years ago:

That proposal is a poor representation. I have seen proposals that merged routes, served major population centres and cost a lot less. If I'm not mistaken, James Nix a transport consultant, provided maps. If I can dig them out, I'll post them.

DWCommuter · 04-07-2011 1:11am

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Thank God we had a good honest Dublin man in Bertie at the helm to capitalise on the greatest period of economic growth in our countries history and reject pandering to popular opinion in order to steer us towards a sustainable future.

I'm waiting for the smiley!

D.L.R. · 04-07-2011 8:02am

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Thank God we had a good honest Dublin man in Bertie at the helm to capitalise on the greatest period of economic growth in our countries history and reject pandering to popular opinion in order to steer us towards a sustainable future.

FF is a culchie organisation, regardless of the poster boy.

Aidan1 · 04-07-2011 10:45am

This has been hacked out here ad nauseum before - Murpaph is entirely correct. 'Radical' redesigns like that proposed by Mr Nix often entirely fail to take account of existing population geographies, the distribution of economic activity, and thus transport patterns. Both Mr Nix's proposals and Lennoxschips proposal almost entirely ignore the fact that there are substantial numbers of people in towns in Ireland that did not have adequate transport links to Dublin/Cork/Limerick, and that the provision of these is as much a function of the motorway network as it is to provide a direct Dublin 'to the provinces' link.

That said, there are parts of the network that should have been built differently, and were planned as such, but which were overruled by political desires. For example, the M9 was not intended to be built as such, but it got both pushed up the wish list and accelerated ahead of the M7 thanks to a certain Mr Cullen. Had the decision to bring the Motorway to Waterford been taken earlier in the political process, then there was a compelling case for not building the M8 on it's current route, but to have it share route with the M9 as far as Kilkenny, and diverge there, heading to Callan/Cahir and on south on the present route. Similarly, the M3 is very difficult to justify.

Some of the rationale behind Mr Nix's suggestions seem to have stemmed from a desire to limit the use of motorways as avenues for the spread of population outside cities. Obviously, in a sane world, that's the function of the planning authorities; however the fact that Cavan and Laois have seen the highest increases in population in the last intercensal would suggest that he had a point. Which is very annoying.

Iwannahurl · 04-07-2011 10:51am

Was there ever any evaluation of Transport 21 along the way? Or is there one in the pipeline?

Aard · 04-07-2011 12:03pm

Are interchanges on motorways particularly expensive to build and maintain? I see an awful lot more of them on Irish motorways than, say, on French ones. For example, Cashel has three (yes, 3!) exits, while if it had been France, there'd probably be just one trumpet linking to a distributor road, if even that. Also the whole Thurles north/south thing. But if they're not too expensive, then I guess it's not such a big deal.

Pete_Cavan · 04-07-2011 6:41pm

Aard wrote: »

Are interchanges on motorways particularly expensive to build and maintain? I see an awful lot more of them on Irish motorways than, say, on French ones. For example, Cashel has three (yes, 3!) exits, while if it had been France, there'd probably be just one trumpet linking to a distributor road, if even that. Also the whole Thurles north/south thing. But if they're not too expensive, then I guess it's not such a big deal.

GSJs are extremely expensive to build. Even the fairly standard Dumbbell, Trumpet or Roundabout interchanges usually found on Irish motorways involve extensive earthworks on one or both sides of the motorway and at least one bridge structure. However, in many cases much of the earthworks and bridge may have been necessary anyway in order to accommodate existing R/L roads which must pass over the motorway.

Looking at Cashel on the map, the three junctions all serve regional roads (perhaps some are the original N road having been detruncked?) so unless you could turn some of those roads into cul de sacs most of the expense was unavoidable. The north Thurles junction with the N75 seems to be a cul de sac so perhaps money could have been saved on a GSJ there.

L1011 · 04-07-2011 7:02pm

Cashel didn't originally have three, it had one and a half; upgraded to two and a half when the motorway was extended and the half later made full by Topaz under their own funding.

Both ends of it, the junction is with the line of the former N8 (N74 at the south end).

Aaron1 · 04-07-2011 11:28pm

MYOB wrote: »

The route mileage we've built could not have been reshaped to what DLR seems to think it could.

Instead of the M6/7/8/9 you could have done this with roughly the same milage.

http://maps.google.ie/maps/ms?msid=204944746234790398976.0004a71bb714fbc658e1d&msa=0&ll=52.200874,-8.239746&spn=2.868654,9.854736

Transport 21 is finally officially dead

Comments