Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

M1 New Section of D3 (three lanes) at Swords

1…1415171920…36

Comments

  • #482
    The Westerner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭The Westerner


    What'll be the speed limit on this stretch when completed I wonder? 100 or 120 km/h?


  • #483
    celticbest
    Registered Users Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Almost. You would have to bear left at the left hand junction and then cross, as there is no direct right turn here.

    :confused: Not sure what you mean?


  • #484
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    celticbest wrote: »
    :confused: Not sure what you mean?
    You'll have to follow the flow of the existing roundabout as the three new centre lanes will have no U-Turn on them.


  • #485
    Irish and Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    The Westerner wrote: »
    What'll be the speed limit on this stretch when completed I wonder? 100 or 120 km/h?

    100kph I'd say - all lane widths will be 3.5m which would be very tight for 120kph. It's one thing having 2 lanes of 3.5m lanes each way @ 120kph when motorists can drive slightly closer to whichever edge to allow more room - there's no doing that in the centre lane of a 3 lane carriageway. The centre lanes on the M50 can feel quite confined in heavy traffic (particularly with trucks) - even @ 100kph.

    Regards!


  • #486
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    all lane widths will be 3.5m which would be very tight for 120kph. I

    Does it explicitly say that the lane width will be 3.5m?
    I ask because the Broadmeadow bridge was designed for 3x3.75m lanes and this is the main point of constriction.


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    tharlear
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭tharlear


    what do the yellow line across the junction indicate?

    Apart from the road going (north south in the pictures) is the rest of the junction on one level, is it just an elongated roundabout?


  • #488
    Irish and Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    tharlear wrote: »
    what do the yellow line across the junction indicate?

    Apart from the road going (north south in the pictures) is the rest of the junction on one level, is it just an elongated roundabout?

    The yellow strips represent at-grade (road level) pedestrian/cyclist crossings. Apart from the M1 mainline (North/South road), the junction is at just one level.

    Regards!


  • #489
    Irish and Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    ardmacha wrote: »
    Does it explicitly say that the lane width will be 3.5m?
    I ask because the Broadmeadow bridge was designed for 3x3.75m lanes and this is the main point of constriction.

    Yes, according to this PDF (2.6MB) on the Fingal CC website, the lane widths will be 3.5m - see the Cross Section on Page 3.

    Regards!


  • #490
    tharlear
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭tharlear


    Originally Posted by tharlear
    what do the yellow line across the junction indicate?

    Apart from the road going (north south in the pictures) is the rest of the junction on one level, is it just an elongated roundabout?

    The yellow strips represent at-grade (road level) pedestrian/cyclist crossings. Apart from the M1 mainline (North/South road), the junction is at just one level.

    Regards!


    Traffic mixing with ped/cyclist at a "rural" junction like this, looks dangerous to me.

    Is it rural enough area that ped/cyclist is extremely low?


  • #491
    sk8board
    Registered Users Posts: 3,152 ✭✭✭sk8board


    ongarboy wrote: »
    Out of interest, has this existing dangerous right lane merge proven to be dangerous in practice now that it has been there a few months? (when I initially saw it, I did think it was a recipe for accidents but now that I've driven it frequently, there is a long lead time for merging and with plenty of advance signage combined with regular driver familiarity, are such concerns still warranted? Has there been reports of collisions/near misses etc?

    it is absolutely rediculous. Its getting worse.

    I don't think its exceptional to say that there are 1-2 collisions per week these days; sometimes more.

    2 this week, 1 the previous week, 3 in a row the last week before christmas

    fridays collision was in the middle lane, back from the merge a bit - 2 cars in bits, especially the one behind - bonnot was in a big V.
    Last week there appeared to be 5 cars damaged one of the days.

    I'm actually getting sick to the teeth of it! the old way was actually better and less stress.

    I think the problem is AFTER the merge. for some reason the traffic takes hundreds of yards to get going even though the volume isn't near capacity, and the inside lane is the faster one, which makes it even more dangerous as you have lads diving down both the outside AND inside lanes.
    I think the problem is that slower/careful drivers stay out of the inside lane for the Swords exit, and then end up inadvertently in the overtaking lane after the merge with lads jumping all over them, inside and behind.

    (did I mention I was sick of it??!)


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,947 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Irish and Proud wrote: »
    100kph I'd say - all lane widths will be 3.5m which would be very tight for 120kph.
    Regards!
    I'd be surprised if they lowered the limit. The main reason the limit on the M50 is 100 is not due to narrow lanes, it's because of close junction spacing. The distance between Drinan and Lissenhall is 4k.


  • #493
    Kumsheen
    Registered Users Posts: 314 ✭✭Kumsheen


    I don't think a 100kph limit is a big deal to be honest, it's not for very long until you pass the Lissenhall exit.


  • #494
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    I don't think a 100kph limit is a big deal to be honest, it's not for very long until you pass the Lissenhall exit.

    It sets a pattern of road improvement to achieve speed reduction. If it eventually made D3M to Ballbriggan, Julianstown or Newry will it then all be reduced to 100Kph?

    Traffic moves along at 120KPH for 21 hours of the day here at present, without this "improvement".


  • #495
    celticbest
    Registered Users Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    sk8board wrote: »
    it is absolutely rediculous. Its getting worse.

    I don't think its exceptional to say that there are 1-2 collisions per week these days; sometimes more.

    2 this week, 1 the previous week, 3 in a row the last week before christmas

    fridays collision was in the middle lane, back from the merge a bit - 2 cars in bits, especially the one behind - bonnot was in a big V.
    Last week there appeared to be 5 cars damaged one of the days.

    I'm actually getting sick to the teeth of it! the old way was actually better and less stress.

    I think the problem is AFTER the merge. for some reason the traffic takes hundreds of yards to get going even though the volume isn't near capacity, and the inside lane is the faster one, which makes it even more dangerous as you have lads diving down both the outside AND inside lanes.
    I think the problem is that slower/careful drivers stay out of the inside lane for the Swords exit, and then end up inadvertently in the overtaking lane after the merge with lads jumping all over them, inside and behind.

    (did I mention I was sick of it??!)

    First crash of this week on the first night of the week, two cars @ about 5:25 last night again just at the merge.


  • #496
    cargo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭cargo


    celticbest wrote: »
    First crash of this week on the first night of the week, two cars @ about 5:25 last night again just at the merge.

    Middle lane rear-ender.... just looked like a very minor tip. Had been a breakdown and log-jam there a bit earlier according to AA Roadwatch.

    Cant start quick enough


  • #497
    celticbest
    Registered Users Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    cargo wrote: »
    Cant start quick enough

    +1, roll it on......


  • #498
    Scipio76
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Scipio76


    There were some yellow and black portacabins being delivered into a field right beside the northbound J4 off ramp this morning. Looks like it's kicking off.


  • #499
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Scipio76 wrote: »
    There were some yellow and black portacabins being delivered into a field right beside the northbound J4 off ramp this morning. Looks like it's kicking off.

    yeah, they've siac written on em.


  • #500
    cargo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,214 ✭✭✭cargo


    cargo wrote: »
    celticbest wrote: »
    First crash of this week on the first night of the week, two cars @ about 5:25 last night again just at the merge.

    Middle lane rear-ender.... just looked like a very minor tip. Had been a breakdown and log-jam there a bit earlier according to AA Roadwatch.

    Cant start quick enough


    Another crash this evening.


  • #501
    sk8board
    Registered Users Posts: 3,152 ✭✭✭sk8board


    cargo wrote: »
    Another crash this evening.

    looked like the rear of the 2 cars was written off - it gave a Focus a real stunt up the bum.

    I'll bet theres no-where else like it in Ireland at the moment - a 400 yard stretch of road thats claiming about 10 vehicles per week. If it wasn't so seriously it'd be comical!


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    This is the first thread I have ever started so excuse me if I get everything wrong.

    I noticed the widening of the M1 past the Airport as far as Drynham Junction has been completed and came upon this scheme in a list provided by the forum's greatest contributor, Mr Sponge Bob.

    Past the (new) Drynham exit heading north the mainline reduces from 3 lanes to two; common abroad but the first time I've seen this in Ireland. (Usually here the inside lane converts into a filter lane, goes up a ramp and is lost).

    The arrangement looked "temporary" - and this scheme seems to bear that out.

    Anyone got any maps, links, pics - whatever - to this scheme?


  • #503
    Dingatron
    Registered Users Posts: 2,694 ✭✭✭Dingatron


    The last few pages of this thread explains it all.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055910504


  • #504
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    Hope I'm not getting this wrong :o

    The Drynam to Lissenhall Widening is from J3 (Drinan/Drynam) to J4 at Lissenhall??

    (Which means it includes putting six traffic lanes across the bridge across the Broadmedows Estuary)


  • #505
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    MYOB wrote: »
    The Estuary bridge is more than wide enough - it has space for a third lane in the centre as part of its design.

    I see the issue has been teased out!

    This is exactly what I was wondering about.


  • #506
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    M1 Swords Improvement Scheme and Lissenhall Junction Upgrade

    Here's the layout.

    Have I created a duplicate thread? :rolleyes:


  • #507
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    M1 Swords Improvement Scheme and Lissenhall Junction Upgrade

    Here's the layout.

    Have I created a duplicate thread? :rolleyes:

    Perhaps, though one could argue that this thread is specifically bout one scheme, the other thread originally started about the initial proposal but broaden out. If you want we can merge the two. Obviously historically on major schemes we did maintain seperate threads for different sections of motorway been built (M6 Athlone to Galway etc.)


  • #508
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    I suppose it's not a good idea if discussion, pictures, updates etc get split between two threads.

    Maybe merge and change name to reflect the ongoing work is from Drynam to Lissenhall?


  • #509
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    I suppose it's not a good idea if discussion, pictures, updates etc get split between two threads.

    Maybe merge and change name to reflect the ongoing work is from Drynam to Lissenhall?

    Done I haven't changed the name just let, suggestions on a postcard!


  • #510
    celticbest
    Registered Users Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Done I haven't changed the name just let, suggestions on a postcard!


    From : Short Section of D3 (three lanes) for M1
    To : Medium Section of D3 (three lanes) for M1

    ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    Irish and Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Done I haven't changed the name just let, suggestions on a postcard!

    How about:

    New Sections of D3 (three lanes) for M1


Advertisement