Dublin Eastern Bypass feasibility report
- This topic has 26 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
I hope you’re sitting down
Eastern Bypass Feasibility Study Report
The Authority was charged by the Government with the task of carrying out a Feasibility Study in respect of a possible Eastern Bypass of Dublin.
The attached document, issued in 2007, provides an examination of the feasibility of the project from a policy, economic, engineering and environmental perspective. It concludes that the scheme is technical feasible, strategically beneficial and economically viable, with the economic benefits of the project conservatively estimated at twice the cost.
The report does, however, identify that this is an expensive scheme and the significance of this scale of investment in the current economic climate is fully recognised. As a consequence, the NRA recommended to Government that it would be premature at this stage to make a decision to proceed to construction.
The NRA did recommend that development planning in Dublin does need to integrate the potential possibility of this scheme fully into that planning process. Significant proposals are emerging in the North Port area, the Poolbeg/Ringsend area and the Sandyford area, all of which need to have integrated transport and land use planning at the heart of their consideration. Not to integrate transport and land use planning fully in such processes risks repeating many of the planning errors of previous decades.
While the NRA fully supports the view that public transport needs to be the primary transport mode for these development areas with diminished reliance upon car transport, it is nevertheless the case that a significant element of road provision will always be required for both public and private transport, and that the Eastern Bypass proposal appears to offer the appropriate means, and perhaps the only means, to service that need in these developing areas.
The NRA proposed that the scheme should be further developed to the stage that all necessary investigative work (ground investigations, ecological assessments, archaeological assessments) have been completed and a final detailed proposal developed, inclusive of full public consultation on the proposals.
Out of that work, which would take about three years, would emerge a completed design of a fully functioning route addressing all of the substantial engineering and ecological challenges. At that stage a fully informed decision could be made on whether or not to proceed with the scheme.
Irrespective of the decision ultimately made, the key benefit of this approach is that an accurate and exact provision for the scheme could be integrated into the planning work of all agencies along the route. This would ensure that the scheme would remain protected and would be ready and available for implementation at any stage in the future, if required. In addition, it would prevent that new constraints from emerging that would render the project unavailable, or significantly increase its costs, in the future..
Ancillary to the above key benefit is that fact that moving the project forward to the next stage now will ensure that the delivery timeline for the project would be reduced by three years if a decision is made to proceed with the construction of the scheme at a future point.
Finally, it should be noted that the costs quoted in the report are based on price and cost levels in 2007. Since then land and construction costs have reduced and while this does not undermine any of the report’s analysis and conclusions, it does mean that the costs of the scheme are likely to be significantly lower and the benefit to cost ratio is likely to be further enhanced.
http://www.nra.ie/News/NewsAnnouncements/htmltext,16121,en.html
http://www.nra.ie/Publications/DownloadableDocumentation/PublicPrivatePartnership/file,16122,en.pdf
Back to the future.
How to waste €4Bn. of taxpayers money, just tio reduce traffic by less than 10% on the Rock Road
Here’s my thoughts
http://cuffestreet.blogspot.com/Thanks Deputy Cuffe. Did this scheme figure at all in the negotiations and ultimate decision to “sup with the devil” or was it left aside for another time, beyond the lifetime of this administration? I presume that this won’t go anywhere while you are in Govt, at least until after every single rail project in the GDA is operational?
Anyway back to George Lee on RTE’s “How we Blew the Boom” – given the reality he almost seems cheery now – scary stuff…
Good piece as well but the headline “Greens say Metro-North a better option than €4Bn. Eastern Bypass” is a bit funny. Even “Do-Nothing” would be a better option than this! It’s not just a choice between the EByP and Metro north. It’s a choice between insisting on repeating the horrendous mistakes of the past, on a national scale such as the M50 and consequent zonings, to the local scale such as the Monkstown Ring Road and the destruction of a suburb, or learning from them – building better communities and better services. That’s the debate I want to hear, not just an accountancy exercise on which scheme is better.
I’m not saying the Greens aren’t at the forefront of this debate. You clearly are. It’s just that the splitting up of the various proposals when a coherent network is what is required really irks me – especially today when construction costs are falling…
Yeah I don’t see the point metro north or eastern bypass…
The food stuffs would be better spent on the college green triangle…
we can even get the NRA to build one box and the RPA the other and compare the differences support for metro north should be conditional…
having said that it would be great if the NRA helped build tunnels for trains build a super sized underground carpark for college green and the associated car tunnels.We can afford the best international architects for curvy bridge projects x 3 but when it comes to metro stations… used by a projected 32 million people a year…
we cannot afford curves or architecture or finishes, complex engineering you name it…
Some of the road projects I have seen here put the finishes in metro north to shame.
i.e. a bridge in the middle of nowhere that has wait for it… colored and textured concrete and a design intent. Precast concrete made from rubber molds…but there is still time…
@Ciaran Cuffe wrote:
Back to the future.
How to waste €4Bn. of taxpayers money, just tio reduce traffic by less than 10% on the Rock Road
Here’s my thoughts
http://cuffestreet.blogspot.com/to be fair they conclude that a a tunnel under sandymount would be just as likely you should critic that not just the long bridge.
Anything that stops Sandymount Srand from slipping further into ‘untouchable’ status is worth looking at IMO.
Obviously building more roads in Dublin with (ultimately) transportation funds, would be obscene, as would be trying to spend €4Bn on anything when the piggybank is empty, but how else do you put Dublin Bay on the planning agenda, where it belongs!
I respect the Greens as much as the next man, but they should be leading this debate. It involves everything they hold dear; the city’s interface with it’s natural environment, making amenities that benefit the whole city and not just the fortunate few, and ‘sustainability’ in the form of making a more compact city without resorting to the false god of quick-fix high-rise. These are ‘green’ issues, or should be.
If it takes an out-dated ‘motorway across the strand’ notion to get the debate going again, so be it, because it isn’t happening otherwise, not as long as the Greens leave all this in the hands of the bird-watch wing of the movement.
are you saying we should put this backward nonsense on the table because we as a citizenry are incapable of debating our city without it being framed by a battle? That’s a bit depressing.
are you saying we should put this backward nonsense on the table because we as a citizenry are incapable of debating our city without it being framed by a battle?
It certainly is depressing, alonso, but there seems to be no effective way that ‘the citizenry’ (however defined) can enter into any meaningful debate about major (or indeed, minor) planning issues outside the context of the councillor/planner/developer magic circle. It’s a major democratic deficit with the whole planning system; formal ‘consultation’ is fine, but that should never be confused with debate and ‘discursive democracy’ – which is far too heady stuff. That is why ‘issues’ and ‘battles’ are often the only way to waken the citizenry up.
Any planners care to comment?You’ve answered that perfectly, johnglas.
I looked at alonso’s post a few time and I couldn’t think of how to answer it.
I understand how politically poisonous anything to do with Sandymount Strand is going to be (and add Clontarf and Dollymount to that), not to mention taking on some EU bird stop-over protection zoning, but it has to be trashed out, and not just by five or six people on Archiseek.
Building a motorway across (or under, or over) the strand is probably the wrong thing to do, but so are several other things that we seem quite content to allow.
1. For the city to essentially turn it’s back on the potential to re-make it’s relationship with Dublin Bay, is wrong.2. To accept the boundaries of ‘Poolbeg’ as somehow sacrosanct, just because that happens to be where they stopped dumping landfill in the 1970s, is wrong.
3. Allowing Dublin Port to add to their vast land-bank without a proper urban vision for the future, is wrong.
Now all we have to do is to figure out what would be right!
what’s interesting is that many US / Canadian cities which built a freeway along their waterfront have removed them or are largely planning on doing so…
can we not make this all about rich people who live alone the coast, as if its somehow the crux of the issue, like suggesting that the people around dartmouth square deserve what they’re getting.
@lostexpectation wrote:
can we not make this all about rich people who leave along the coast, as if its somehow the crux of the issue . . . .
OK you’re right!
In all fairness, when you ask a company to carry out a feasibility report on building a bypass like this, what else are they going to come back and suggest other than large bridges and tunnels.
Their remit was not to come back and say no, this road shouldn’t be built.
The fact is this road won’t be built and I believe it’s disingenuous of the Green Party to feign concern about a project that they know is not happening.
This is a feasibility report and that’s it. At least, for future debate, we now have what seems to me a quite comprehensive discussion of the options, as unpalatable as they may seem both economically and environmentally.Gunter’s comments above that the greens should be leading the debate is spot on. Instead of being reactionary after the event, sometimes you should lead from the front.
The level of unreality in this debate is…well…unbelievable. The eastern bypass, as the final link in the ring-road around Dublin is a key piece of strategic infrastructure for Dublin and will finally provide the final eastern link between the M50 and the port tunnel, whether it is underground or whatever.
It should, of course, be of least priority in Transport 21 with DART underground and other public transport coming first, but it begs the question, who is shouting for public transport in government?
Also, who is shouting to cut the out of control current spending so that we can actually afford to build these capital projects during the downturn? I think taxpayers would be right to start a revolt against all the spending if it continues to go into the government waste machine instead of being invested in new infrastructure.
+1 Not everything can be managed by public transport, vehicles of all types need access to our city. Unless you want to selotape a freight container to a Luas. Obviously PT is more far more important at this stage, but the revulsion to this here is puzzling me.
I also think the bridge is quite beautiful.
@SunnyDub wrote:
The level of unreality in this debate is…well…unbelievable. The eastern bypass, as the final link in the ring-road around Dublin is a key piece of strategic infrastructure for Dublin and will finally provide the final eastern link between the M50 and the port tunnel, whether it is underground or whatever.
Why does a coastal city require a full ring road? Why is there another need for a link from the M50 to the Port tunnel? Where has the need for this route been adequately demonstrated? Who will use it? Why have we doubled the M50 if this link was to relieve it? How does it fit into overall societal goals re climate change, car dependency and proper and sustainable urban living?
It should, of course, be of least priority in Transport 21 with DART underground and other public transport coming first, but it begs the question, who is shouting for public transport in government?
It’s not in T21. The Greens and many converts in Fianna Fail. in any case this Government will not be dealing with the Eastern bypass
[/QUOTE]Also, who is shouting to cut the out of control current spending so that we can actually afford to build these capital projects during the downturn? I think taxpayers would be right to start a revolt against all the spending if it continues to go into the government waste machine instead of being invested in new infrastructure.[/QUOTE]
Yes I fully agree. infrastructure that pays for itself many times over in it’s lifetime. Infrastructure that reduces car dependency. Infrastructure that can be used to combat sprawl. infrastructure that is open to all, not just car users. Infrastructure that will reduce pollution.
Not another urban motorway. Why ape the mistakes of the Anglo-Saxon 1970’s Highway model. Why turn Dublin into Coventry or Houston? We can spend this money on rail and save money in the long term.
Why build a motorway for a catchment comprised of fish?
While this motorway is stupid, I would take Alonso up on saying that urban motorways are and Anglo-Saxon thing. Britain actually has an extremely sparse motorway network, and there are very few major motorways in city centres, with the exception of Glasgow, and Belfast the only other urban motorways in the UK are fragmentary pieces. Compare London with the M25 as its ring motorway to Paris which has 3 ring motorways, and Madrid which has 4.
In order of motorway building, Britain has a moderate network of interurban motorways, and a few scraps of misguided 60’s urban motorway. Most of continental Europe are much less shy about urban motorway – the A6 in Paris being a particularly monster. But it’s the USA that does urban motorway on a completely different scale to any other country in the world, maybe along with Canada.
Have a look at a few birds eye images on maps.live.com, and compare London to Paris and Los Angeles.yeh maybe you’re right and it’s unfair but compare the public transport systems in the UK and US to the continent. (London aside).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
