In the second of a series on Irish transport policy, James Nix argues for a fresh approach to our road network
Compared to two-lane roads, motorways are a joy. A camper-van can turn a two-lane road into a slow-moving queue. Provide two lanes in each direction and vehicles cruising on the inside lane can easily be overtaken.
Looking at the M1 or the M4 routes today, few would argue that a necklace of bypasses would have been a good solution. The Government's decision in 1999 to go for long stretches of motorway was correct. Having acknowledged that the Government got it right with the Belfast and Galway routes, there is a temptation to contend that new motorway from Dublin to Ashbourne, Cork, Limerick, Navan and Waterford is also correct. It isn't. Why not? The answer, in a word, is purpose.
As a nation we are seeking to redirect growth - to develop cities aside from Dublin. Motorway-building is the principle tool in this process. Some motorways focused on Dublin makes sense.
There comes a point when feeding all motorway into the M50 becomes counterproductive for Dublin and, at the same time, hinders the growth of other cities.
Encouraging Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford to rely on each other is central to regional growth. Good quality roads between them is the main way to achieve this. If, on the other hand, all motorway leads to Dublin, the consequences are stark. The capital will continue to serve needs that could be served by other regional cities.
Inter-regional reliance will remain a fantasy. Public representatives may as well shred the Spatial Plan and declare Ireland a city-state. Strong words, but the research couldn't be clearer. If building a fan of motorways from the capital aided regional growth, then Ballymena and Portadown should have become cites by now.
Welsh research shows that it is more important to link regional cities to each other rather than to the primate city. One study of the British motorway network found that its bias towards the area of England between Nottingham and Dover handicapped the development of the rest of Britain.
Germany deliberately decided not to focus its motorway network on Berlin. Portugal opted for a grid network to take some pressure off Lisbon. France, after years of radio-centric planning favouring Paris, is now trying to establish a synergy between Bordeaux, Toulouse and Marseilles; transport planning is the key instrument.
Back to Ireland. Separate motorways to Cork and Waterford cannot be defended. A motorway to Waterford should run via New Ross - to allow access to Rosslare - and be continued to Cork. Take the total amount of road needed for separate motorways and compare it with a single route - the build saving is staggering: 100km or €1 billion. This saving is four or five times the outlay to date on preliminary planning.
The key factor in today's supply chain is "delivery reliability", i.e. being able to say with certainty how long it takes to get to a given destination.
A Dublin-Waterford-Cork route achieves this: more goods will be routed through ports in the south-east, easing tailbacks at the Red Cow; people in Waterford will be encouraged to use Cork's new airport terminal, when complete; establishing a fully-fledged division of the High Court in Cork makes more sense, and so on.
Has Limerick been left out? No, delivery reliability has already been achieved between Portlaoise and Limerick. Limerick's problems stem from poor north-south connections (a point covered in this paper last Tuesday week).
And Meath? The NRA says that "road users travelling south [from Derry\] on the N2 will be encouraged, using a combination of advertising and signage, to use the link just north of Ardee to the M1, which is now complete from Dundalk to Dublin, as the more time efficient and safer route to Dublin, rather than using the traditional N2 route".
This strategy makes sense. Therefore, any plan to build two-by-two road from the N2 junction at the M50 north to Ashbourne is redundant. All that is required is a section of new road around Ashbourne so that the town's main street can be reserved for local traffic only.
Proposed motorway to Navan (and onto Kells) is a similar case. A newly-printed map of Ireland shows that the Drogheda bypass runs considerably west of the town. An east-west motorway from Navan to the Drogheda bypass would be about 60 per cent shorter than the €680 million route from Navan to Clonee. Drogheda port would be better linked with Navan and its Meath hinterland.
Isn't it smarter to direct traffic close to Dublin Airport and Dublin Port rather onto the Blanchardstown roundabout?
The Government should be praised for its decision in late 1999 to go for motorway. The problem - in essence - is that the author(s) of the roads plan appeared to feel that all new motorway should run in the same corridor as pre-existing national route. A wholesale adherence to this strategy is indefensible.
The road-builders of ancient Rome took an entirely fresh approach; their network, the Viae, departed radically from what existed before. Centuries later, the same can be said of the German, US and Portuguese highway networks. Likewise, Britain's M40 has no "junior" trunk route.
To uncritically follow an age-old network is to say that the technology of movement never advances. We know this to be wrong - the gap between today's vehicles and medieval travel is enormous. Departing from our inherited network makes sense because it saves billions.
James Nix is pursuing an MPhil in transport studies at DIT and is in his final year at King's Inns. james.nix@dit.ie