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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

M1 New Section of D3 (three lanes) at Swords

  • 13-05-2010 1:09pm
    #1
    Irish and Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭


    Fingal Co Co has published plans for the widening of a 2km section of the M1 to Dual 3 Lane. The section is between J2 (Airport) and J3 (Drinan). An interesting point, the specs for the Northbound carraigeway is for 3 x 3.65m lanes, while those for the Southbound carraigeway is for 3 x 3.5m lanes. Also, the Hard Shoulders are down as varied - so maybe they'll stay at 3m generally. The Median Strips are 1.0m as usual.

    What I'm guessing is that a 100kph limit will be imposed for Southbound traffic in order to keep the pressure off the M50. If that's so, can one conclude that the standard specs for a 3 lane motorway carraigeway are:

    1 x 3.00m Hard Shoulder
    3 x 3.65m Lanes
    1 x 1.00m Median Strip
    Total Pavement: 14.95m?

    Another interesting point is the two concrete median barriers proposed. The link is as follow:

    http://www.fingalcoco.ie/Roads/SchemesonDisplay/M1CARRIAGEWAYBETWEENAIRPORTANDDRINANINT/

    Regards!

    MOD EDIT:

    New camera active online shows the site

    http://www.dublincity.ie/dublintraffic/

    Site0Camera111.jpg
    Tagged:


«134567…22

Comments

  • #2
    KevR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    The difference in lane width between the two carriageways seems a bit odd. Why not just have them all equal at 3.575m?

    Is a 2.5m hard shoulder not the norm for everything new these days? On the proposed cross-section the Southbound HS actually looks wider than the Northbound; so maybe all running lanes could all be 3.65m?


    The 2 concrete barriers makes sense - concrete barriers usually have to split in 2 to go around bridge and overhead gantry supports. I'm guessing there will be at least a couple of overhead gantry supports or bridge supports so it would only be splitting, rejoining, splitting, rejoining if they were to try to just use a single barrier over such a short distance. Also, (I think) there is lighting poles in the median so 2 seperate barriers would save them having to do anything with those lights.


    PS - nothing stopping them imposing a 100kmh limit Southbound even if the lanes are 3.65m.


  • #3
    alentejo
    Registered Users Posts: 933 ✭✭✭alentejo


    They should really consider having 3 lanes from the airport to the Jct4. Would seem a bit piecemeal as they eventually need to extend this....


  • #4
    Jayuu
    Registered Users Posts: 761 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    alentejo wrote: »
    They should really consider having 3 lanes from the airport to the Jct4. Would seem a bit piecemeal as they eventually need to extend this....

    Totally agree with this although the bridge over the estuary just before Junction 4 would have to be rebuilt which would probably add quite a bit to the cost of the project.

    But anytime I travel out this road heading north during rush hour the traffic always seems to ease off after Junction 4.


  • #5
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,536 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jayuu wrote: »
    Totally agree with this although the bridge over the estuary just before Junction 4 would have to be rebuilt which would probably add quite a bit to the cost of the project.

    But anytime I travel out this road heading north during rush hour the traffic always seems to ease off after Junction 4.

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


  • #6
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    Jayuu wrote: »
    Totally agree with this although the bridge over the estuary just before Junction 4 would have to be rebuilt which would probably add quite a bit to the cost of the project.
    The two bridges, the one over the estuary and the one over Seatown Road are wide enough for another lane both sides with space left. The bridges were of course built with this in mind. No rebuilding is necessary, just laying the surface.

    Crossed with MYOB!!


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Jayuu
    Registered Users Posts: 761 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    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.

    Fair enough. Its been a while since I've actually driven over it and I would have thought it wasn't wide enough. In that case I don't see why they couldn't extend it all the way to Junction 4.

    And while they were working it would be handy to have Junction 3 upgraded to a full junction.


  • #8
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    Jayuu wrote: »
    And while they were working it would be handy to have Junction 3 upgraded to a full junction.
    J3 doesn't need to be a full junction. It's these junctions that slow down traffic flow, Swords already has two full junctions and one north off and south on, more than enough.


  • #9
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    D3 all the way to Junction 4 or its not worth doing.

    Considering the "recent" nature of many of our roads, the unnecessary tailbacks in certain areas is a classic example of how this country ballsed it up. D3 southbound to the ball at Naas and merge to D2 is another disaster in evening peak.


  • #10
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Bypass Galway first , delays on this stretch are minor league and widening a waste of money to my mind!!!


  • #11
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Bypass Galway first , delays on this stretch are minor league and widening a waste of money to my mind!!!
    Let have your definition of minor?

    Also note that FCC's proposals and Galways bypass aren't mutually exclusive and come from a different fund.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    celticbest
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Bypass Galway first , delays on this stretch are minor league and widening a waste of money to my mind!!!

    Galway has far less traffic to deal with compared to Dublin, also the M1 connects the two biggest cities in Ireland - Dublin to Belfast through some of the most densely populated parts of the country, if this road needs to be widened in order for traffic to flow then this should be done.

    Population of Galway 231,035 - area 6,148 km2 - density 37 per km2
    Population of Fingal region 239,813 - area 448.07 km2 - density 535 per km2

    Yes Galway does need to be by-passed but you can't say don't do this job or that job before you do this one or this is a waste of money.

    People in Dublin have had to live with the worst traffic in the country for years, we are only recently seeing an improvement in this thanks to the upgrade of the M50, as a result of this upgrade traffic is getting to the M1 in a much quicker and more steady flow, this is now causing this stretch of the M1 Motorway to clog up at peak times so yes this upgrade does need to be done ASAP so the people of Swords, Balbriggan, Gormanstown, Stamullen, Drogheda, Dundalk, Newry whom use this route to commute to and from work on a daily basis and then you also have the intercity traffic heading to Belfast, on a road of this importance you should expect traffic not to have to come to a standstill around Swords each and every evening.

    Lets not forget that this is a Motorway and slowdowns like this should not occur on a regular basis.


  • #13
    KevR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    celticbest wrote: »
    Lets not forget that this is a Motorway and slowdowns like this should not occur on a regular basis.
    I agree

    but...
    celticbest wrote: »
    Galway has far less traffic to deal with compared to Dublin, also the M1 connects the two biggest cities in Ireland - Dublin to Belfast through some of the most densely populated parts of the country, if this road needs to be widened in order for traffic to flow then this should be done.

    Population of Galway 231,035 - area 6,148 km2 - density 37 per km2
    Population of Fingal region 239,813 - area 448.07 km2 - density 535 per km2

    Yes Galway does need to be by-passed but you can't say don't do this job or that job before you do this one or this is a waste of money.

    People in Dublin have had to live with the worst traffic in the country for years, we are only recently seeing an improvement in this thanks to the upgrade of the M50, as a result of this upgrade traffic is getting to the M1 in a much quicker and more steady flow, this is now causing this stretch of the M1 Motorway to clog up at peak times so yes this upgrade does need to be done ASAP so the people of Swords, Balbriggan, Gormanstown, Stamullen, Drogheda, Dundalk, Newry whom use this route to commute to and from work on a daily basis and then you also have the intercity traffic heading to Belfast, on a road of this importance you should expect traffic not to have to come to a standstill around Swords each and every evening.

    We're talking about a bypass of Galway City, not the entire County!! Population density in Galway City is obviously far greater than the density of the whole County (it's the second biggest county in the Ireland!).

    I do think the M1 widening should go ahead and I don't think it will ever be a case of either the Galway BP or the M1 widening only going ahead, both eventually will.

    However, if it was the case that one had to get priority over the other then the Galway Bypass would definitely have to be given priority. It wouldn't even come close to being a contest, no offence to the people of North Dublin/the M1 corridor.


  • #14
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    KevR wrote: »
    However, if it was the case that one had to get priority over the other then the Galway Bypass would definitely have to be given priority. It wouldn't even come close to being a contest, no offence to the people of North Dublin/the M1 corridor.
    Totally unbiased view of course. :rolleyes:


  • #15
    celticbest
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    KevR wrote: »
    We're talking about a bypass of Galway City, not the entire County!! Population density in Galway City is obviously far greater than the density of the whole County (it's the second biggest county in the Ireland!).
    celticbest wrote: »
    Galway has far less traffic to deal with compared to Dublin, also the M1 connects the two biggest cities in Ireland - Dublin to Belfast through some of the most densely populated parts of the country, if this road needs to be widened in order for traffic to flow then this should be done.

    As I stated before the M1 is a major route which connects city to city, the Galway bypass from what I can see doesn't connect to any other major route, correct me if I'm wrong.

    Proposed N6 -Galway outer Bypass.JPG
    KevR wrote: »
    However, if it was the case that one had to get priority over the other then the Galway Bypass would definitely have to be given priority. It wouldn't even come close to being a contest, no offence to the people of North Dublin/the M1 corridor.

    Lets not forget that the M1 is the mainline link to Dublin Port and Dublin Airport, both of which are the busiest goods/people movers in the country.

    Dublin Airport is expected to have 20 million passengers this year, it's usually open 364 days a year (except for ash clouds) this equals an average of about 55,000 people using it a day, http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1016963.shtml

    Dublin port, the latest figures I could find (2003) Passengers through were 1.5 million this as per above standard would equal an average of about 4,100 passengers a day, also 23.5 million tonnes of cargo pass through it yearly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Port

    It therefore goes without saying that the M1 is a higher priority than Galway City by-pass, Galway in the last census had a population of 72,414, Dublin Airport daily passengers numbers are 55,000+ Dublin port passengers 4,100 and the population of Swords 33,998 = 93,098 these numbers alone are greater than the population of Galway by over 20,600. This is without adding in the other commuter towns along the M1.

    As I said before Galway deserves a by-pass but you have to look at the numbers before you can say that it should be a priority over the M1.


  • #16
    dan_d
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,819 ✭✭✭dan_d


    I'd imagine that part of the reason for this is the fact that on the northbound carraigeway, the 3rd lane that's been added hasn't been done very well up to the airport - it has quite a sharp bend in it just past the airport junction, where it runs back onto the original M1 lanes.It's quite dangerous at speed. I've also noticed that traffic has been very slow between that point and the Drynan exit, with people changing lanes (badly) to exit at Drynan and merging from the airport ramp aswell.
    But for the love of God, the traffic!!!! We've JUST got over the M1/M50 works.The lack of joined up thinking (ie why wasn't this done as part of those works) in this country terrifies me. Add it to the excellent example of works on the M50 removing all traffic lights at junctions, while up the road on the M1, they are happily installing traffic lights at the roundabouts at the Donabate/Swords exit (one set of which they have now removed)....
    Do we ever learn??


  • #17
    Leonard Hofstadter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Leonard Hofstadter


    It will be a complete waste, as everyone that drives on 3 lane motorways drives in the middle lane/right lane, the left lane simply won't be used as the M50 and N7 proves:(.


  • #18
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    captainspeed wrote: »
    It will be a complete waste, as everyone that drives on 3 lane motorways drives in the middle lane/right lane, the left lane simply won't be used as the M50 and N7 proves:(.
    That generalisation is incorrect.


  • #19
    Jayuu
    Registered Users Posts: 761 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    captainspeed wrote: »
    It will be a complete waste, as everyone that drives on 3 lane motorways drives in the middle lane/right lane, the left lane simply won't be used as the M50 and N7 proves:(.

    Even if that is the case and I don't completely agree with it, there will still be extra capacity which is what the road needs.
    Its just a pity they aren't extending it to Junction 4. From my driving experiences of the road during rush hour once you get past this junction the traffic thins out quite a bit.


  • #20
    Leonard Hofstadter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Leonard Hofstadter


    Do people actually drive in the left lane on the M50 when it is full of traffic?

    I've driven the N7 countless times including during rush hour heading for Dublin and I had a lane to myself(because I was just about the only person driving in the driving(left) lane).

    It gets very annoying very quickly having to jump 2 lanes to overtake someone and jump another 2 lanes back once the overtaking manoeuvre is complete:(.

    I'm not against 3 lane carraigeways in principle but no more should be built until people learn how to drive on them properly, mind you people can't manage 2 lane carriageways either, though not to anything like the extent that people can't handle 3 lanes.


  • #21
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    but no more should be built until people learn how to drive on them properly,

    Thats a bit excessive, a few cameras sending out fines for lane indiscipline would do wonders.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    celticbest
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    captainspeed wrote: »
    It will be a complete waste, as everyone that drives on 3 lane motorways drives in the middle lane/right lane, the left lane simply won't be used as the M50 and N7 proves:(.

    I would have to say that I disagree with your above statement, it would not be a complete waste 'captainspeed', yes lane discipline in this country is very poor but it is up to the people in charge to start enforcing the rules of the road. However just saying that it would be a complete waste could not be further from the truth.

    As an example lets have a look at the M50.

    Since the adding of the extra lanes the motorway has been free moving. However in the one spot at Junction 6 Blanchardstown on the NB carriageway were for a short distance under the junction it reverts back to 2 lanes there is on more occasions than not a hold up at this point.

    Again per your statement above 'captainspeed', how does this hold up occur if everyone drives in the second or third lane?

    The more lanes that are in place then the quicker traffic moves even if the majority of people on the road do not know how to drive on it correctly.


  • #23
    KevR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    Totally unbiased view of course. :rolleyes:

    You don't know anything about me apart from 'Galway City' on my profile so you can't make an informed comment on whether or not I am biased.
    celticbest wrote: »
    As I stated before the M1 is a major route which connects city to city, the Galway bypass from what I can see doesn't connect to any other major route, correct me if I'm wrong.

    Proposed N6 -Galway outer Bypass.JPG



    Lets not forget that the M1 is the mainline link to Dublin Port and Dublin Airport, both of which are the busiest goods/people movers in the country.

    Dublin Airport is expected to have 20 million passengers this year, it's usually open 364 days a year (except for ash clouds) this equals an average of about 55,000 people using it a day, http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1016963.shtml

    Dublin port, the latest figures I could find (2003) Passengers through were 1.5 million this as per above standard would equal an average of about 4,100 passengers a day, also 23.5 million tonnes of cargo pass through it yearly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Port

    It therefore goes without saying that the M1 is a higher priority than Galway City by-pass, Galway in the last census had a population of 72,414, Dublin Airport daily passengers numbers are 55,000+ Dublin port passengers 4,100 and the population of Swords 33,998 = 93,098 these numbers alone are greater than the population of Galway by over 20,600. This is without adding in the other commuter towns along the M1.

    As I said before Galway deserves a by-pass but you have to look at the numbers before you can say that it should be a priority over the M1.

    Hold on a minute. You are talking as if the M1 does not exist and that the old N1 is the only route which connects Dublin City/Airport/Port and Belfast.

    The reasons you give for the Dublin City/Airport/Port to Belfast route being more important than the Galway Bypass route are true and that is why the M1 was built long before the Galway Bypass!! The existing M1 also has a free-flow connection with the M50 (Dublin's Bypass/Orbital)

    There is already a motorway (M1) there which can handle large amounts of traffic and copes well with volumes most of the day. There are some delays at certain times of day - the majority of people who use the M1 don't even experience noticeable delays. These delays are minor when compared to delays in Galway - I have driven all around Dublin including the M1 in various levels of traffic; have you or Bluetonic ever driven fully across Galway at peak times?

    To put things into context for you - imagine what traffic in Dublin City would be like without the M50 because that's pretty much what Galway is like at the moment. I think widening the M1 would be the least of Dublin's traffic worries if the M50 was still only in the planning stages!

    "the Galway bypass from what I can see doesn't connect to any other major route, correct me if I'm wrong." The Galway Bypass will connect to the M6; the M17 and M18 are starting construction at the end of this year and they will both connect to the M6 (which as I mentioned connects to the bypass). The M6 currently ends at an at-grade roundabout in Doughiska - this roundabout was not in the initial plans, the bypass was supposed to have been built at the same time with the M6 feeding directly into it. The bypass didn't happen and the M6 now ends at a 'temporary' roundabout. Soon the M17 and M18 will feed into the M6 and all the traffic from 3 major motorways will arrive at an at-grade roundabout instead of the grade-seperated Dual Carriageway (the bypass).

    More context - imagine the M1 ending at an at-grade roundabout in Drumcondra and the M50 (including the Port Tunnel) not existing. That would be similar to the current setup in Galway.

    I hope the M1 widening does go ahead but I will never accept that delays on that short section of the M1 are worse than the delays around the whole of Galway City. I don't think either of the projects actually have any bearing on each other but I simply can't agree with someone who claims the M1 widening should have priority over the Galway Bypass if the two projects did have a bearing on each other. It seems some people actually get offended if it is suggested that somewhere other than Dublin has worse traffic than Dublin. I really wish Galway didn't have the traffic problems that it does - having worse traffic than Dublin is not something I am at all happy about or proud of.


  • #24
    celticbest
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    KevR wrote: »
    You don't know anything about me apart from 'Galway City' on my profile so you can't make an informed comment on whether or not I am biased.



    Hold on a minute. You are talking as if the M1 does not exist and that the old N1 is the only route which connects Dublin City/Airport/Port and Belfast.

    The reasons you give for the Dublin City/Airport/Port to Belfast route being more important than the Galway Bypass route are true and that is why the M1 was built long before the Galway Bypass!! The existing M1 also has a free-flow connection with the M50 (Dublin's Bypass/Orbital)

    There is already a motorway (M1) there which can handle large amounts of traffic and copes well with volumes most of the day. There are some delays at certain times of day - the majority of people who use the M1 don't even experience noticeable delays. These delays are minor when compared to delays in Galway - I have driven all around Dublin including the M1 in various levels of traffic; have you or Bluetonic ever driven fully across Galway at peak times?

    To put things into context for you - imagine what traffic in Dublin City would be like without the M50 because that's pretty much what Galway is like at the moment. I think widening the M1 would be the least of Dublin's traffic worries if the M50 was still only in the planning stages!

    "the Galway bypass from what I can see doesn't connect to any other major route, correct me if I'm wrong." The Galway Bypass will connect to the M6; the M17 and M18 are starting construction at the end of this year and they will both connect to the M6 (which as I mentioned connects to the bypass). The M6 currently ends at an at-grade roundabout in Doughiska - this roundabout was not in the initial plans, the bypass was supposed to have been built at the same time with the M6 feeding directly into it. The bypass didn't happen and the M6 now ends at a 'temporary' roundabout. Soon the M17 and M18 will feed into the M6 and all the traffic from 3 major motorways will arrive at an at-grade roundabout instead of the grade-seperated Dual Carriageway (the bypass).

    More context - imagine the M1 ending at an at-grade roundabout in Drumcondra and the M50 (including the Port Tunnel) not existing. That would be similar to the current setup in Galway.

    I hope the M1 widening does go ahead but I will never accept that delays on that short section of the M1 are worse than the delays around the whole of Galway City. I don't think either of the projects actually have any bearing on each other but I simply can't agree with someone who claims the M1 widening should have priority over the Galway Bypass if the two projects did have a bearing on each other. It seems some people actually get offended if it is suggested that somewhere other than Dublin has worse traffic than Dublin. I really wish Galway didn't have the traffic problems that it does - having worse traffic than Dublin is not something I am at all happy about or proud of.

    My sister-in-law actually lives in Galway (Doughiska) so I'm down there on a regular basis, the traffic is not comparable to Dublin traffic in anyway whatsoever, yes it's just like any city once you get within a certain radius of the centre the traffic gets heavy.

    From my experience the heavy traffic only starts on the Headford road on the Dublin side & this is approx. 2.1km from the City Centre. I'm not sure about the far side of Galway?

    From O'Connell street in Dublin until you get to the M1(Port Tunnel) is approx 7.8km. So people in Dublin also have to sit in major traffic to get out of the city.

    Yes currently Galway has no ring road and as I've said before it should get one but as I've also stated before that the M1 needs this upgrade to keep traffic flowing.

    This upgrade is only a 2km stretch of road were only one lane needs to be added and by all accounts this job will only take about two months to complete as it is a straight forward lane lay in place of a grass median.


  • #25
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,536 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Traffic in Galway moves a LOT slower for that 2.1KM than it does for the 7.8km in Dublin.

    It can take 45mins to get from one side of the city to the other - which for a small city is absurd.


  • #26
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    dan_d wrote: »
    Add it to the excellent example of works on the M50 removing all traffic lights at junctions, while up the road on the M1, they are happily installing traffic lights at the roundabouts at the Donabate/Swords exit (one set of which they have now removed)....
    Do we ever learn??
    This summary isn't correct.

    I don't think you understand the function of the traffic lights. For low to medium traffic volumes, they don't impede traffic; they improve its efficiency.

    There are 3 stages, each increasing the throughput of the previous:

    Uncontrolled low-capacity junction (usually roundabout)
    Signal-controlled roundabout
    Freeflow junction

    So the M50 has moved from stage 2 to 3 between 2008-2010, while it sounds like Donabate is moving from stage 1 to 2.
    captainspeed wrote: »
    I've driven the N7 countless times including during rush hour heading for Dublin and I had a lane to myself(because I was just about the only person driving in the driving(left) lane).
    I think you're exaggerating here, captainspeed. No way do I believe that in heavy traffic conditions, the left hand lane would be empty. In my experience, people generally drive in the middle lane largely due to the volume of traffic coming in from junction merges, which is a reasonable plan of action on the M50 where junctions are closely spaced (less justifiable on the N7). However as traffic volume increases, the left lane fills too. The capacity of a 6-laner is, IIRC, 82,000 AADT.


  • #27
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    KevR wrote: »
    You don't know anything about me apart from 'Galway City' on my profile so you can't make an informed comment on whether or not I am biased.
    Lighten up, in was a tongue in cheek comment.

    Regards everything else your talking through your hat, M1 > Galway bypass for the reasons stated above.


  • #28
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,963 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    MYOB wrote: »
    Traffic in Galway moves a LOT slower for that 2.1KM than it does for the 7.8km in Dublin.

    It can take 45mins to get from one side of the city to the other - which for a small city is absurd.

    Realistically Galway shouldnt even be a city, its just a big town. For a big town, it has absolutely atrotious traffic at rush hour.


  • #29
    KevR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    Lighten up, in was a tongue in cheek comment.

    Regards everything else your talking through your hat, M1 > Galway bypass for the reasons stated above.

    What part of my post(s) do you consider to be 'through my hat'?

    I think the M1 should be widened but my stance on the issue certainly hasn't come about on the back of you convincing me (you haven't exactly put forward a huge argument on why the M1 should be done at all and certainly haven't put forward anything convincing with regards to the off-topic argument that the M1 has worse traffic than Galway City).


  • #30
    celticbest
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    This was the traffic around the Airport junction 2 heading NB last night, it was at a standstill as usual.

    [IMG][/img]Junction2M1NB.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,234 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    I'm not sure that D3 will make a huge amount of difference over such a short stretch (or tbh, even to Lissenhall) - certainly not southbound as all the delays are caused by the huge number of people merging over a very short distance approaching the M1/M50 Junction.

    Northbound it'll help, but only to a degree. Only a third lane all the way to at least Lissenhall will make a big difference. What's really needed is 3+Aux lanes as per the M50.

    I maintain that both the airport exit merge Northbound and M50/M1 merges southbound, and possibly the airport interchange itself need to be totally relaid out. At the minute there are some very sharp changes in direction in all lanes, northbound especially.


  • #32
    Jayuu
    Registered Users Posts: 761 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    I think another point to make here is that since the extention is only to Junction 3 both ways we are talking about at max 4-5km of road in total, which already has room for this expansion.

    This should mean that the cost of this project can't be huge for quite a decent improvement in terms of traffic flow. Its not in the scale of what is involved in building the Galway Bypass which is probably why its being given the go-ahead.

    I'm not getting into the merits or otherwise of the Galway By-Pass. In an ideal world both roads would be built but we're living in far from ideal world.


  • #33
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    I think this is a waste of time to be honest.
    If the scheme isn't going to Lissenhall, then all that's needed is Reducing the M1E-M1N ramp to 1 lane and making the Hard shoulder an Aux lane between the M1/M1 junction and the exit for Holywell, and similarily on the otherside making an Aux lane from the onramp at Holywell to the M1S-M1E junction.

    Having two very short merges from M1E-M1N causes congestion as well as the short enough exit to Holywell. You've to merge in the length of 9 dashed lines or about 50m

    While they're at it, there should be a freeflow M1E-M1N lane instead of the traffic light controlled junction that's there now.

    I see the council have finally copped on a bit at the Lissenhall junction and fixed the traffic lights a bit. Whoopididoo.

    Also there should be a freeflow slip for R132N - M1N to reduce traffic exiting Swords, which causes traffic from the M1N to be delayed on the exit.


  • #34
    celticbest
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Also there should be a freeflow slip for R132N - M1N to reduce traffic exiting Swords, which causes traffic from the M1N to be delayed on the exit.

    Completely agree with you on this Carawaystick, I have myself posted on this previously, this would also be a simple fix to alleviate traffic at J4 NB.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65141694&postcount=1347


  • #35
    celticbest
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    Yet again the usual hold-up around J2 NB on the M1, 5:20pm 26.05.10,

    Junction2M1NB270510.jpg

    Any sort of upgrade of this section of the M1 would be great, yes I know that this will probably lead to the section between J3 (Drynan) & J4 (Lissenhall) clogging up, but it's worth seeing what happens. This section can always be upgraded in the furute if required.

    At least there would be some sort of alleviation of traffic around Junctions 1 & 2 on the M1 NB.


  • #36
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,294 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Would love to see that airport junction fixed too, its so weak...


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Jayuu
    Registered Users Posts: 761 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    Would love to see that airport junction fixed too, its so weak...

    Completely agree. The Airport > M1S and M1S > Airport should be converted to free flow in exact same manner as the new M50/M1 freeflows were done. There seems to be enough room at the junction to do that. Then with some remedial work on the roundabout it would be easy to make the Airport > M1N freeflow as well.


  • #38
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    KevR wrote: »
    What part of my post(s) do you consider to be 'through my hat'?
    I take that back, apologies.


  • #39
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    celticbest wrote: »
    This was the traffic around the Airport junction 2 heading NB last night, it was at a standstill as usual.

    [IMG][/img]Junction2M1NB.jpg

    Slightly OT, but was that learner driving unaccompanied on a motorway!
    Typical :rolleyes:


  • #40
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Slightly OT, but was that learner driving unaccompanied on a motorway!
    Typical :rolleyes:
    Can you not see the guardian angel shining brightly in the passenger seat?


  • #41
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Totally off topic, but have you discounted the possibility that it's a shared car, one with a Learner Permit, one with a Driving License, and that it's the driver with the license that took it on the motorway?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    SeanW wrote: »
    Totally off topic, but have you discounted the possibility that it's a shared car, one with a Learner Permit, one with a Driving License, and that it's the driver with the license that took it on the motorway?
    In which case the "L" plate should be removed.

    Driving school cars are exempt!


  • #43
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,234 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    In which case the "L" plate should be removed.

    Driving school cars are exempt!

    This has been done utterly to death in the Learning to Drive forum.

    There is NO requirement for a fully licenced driver to remove L plates on a motorway. Up north, there is.

    Whether or not it makes sense to take them down I dunno, I would argue that it doesn't really, as if you see L-plates on a motorway you make an assumption under the law that the driver is allowed to be there. If they get pulled and they're not, they're screwed, all's fair.


  • #44
    Alun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,486 ✭✭✭✭Alun


    sdonn wrote: »
    There is NO requirement for a fully licenced driver to remove L plates on a motorway. Up north, there is.
    Everywhere, not only on a motorway. If you don't have a law like this, which I believe we should, then what conclusions can any driver draw from the fact the car in front has L plates up, and therefore what on earth is the point of having them at all?


  • #45
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,234 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Personally I live in the real world, and I can tell an early stage learner by their standard and speed of driving, braking 3 miles before a bend, etc....don't really need to see an L-plate ;)

    On a serious note, I take your point - it would be a severe pain taking them down especially as half of them are self adhesive externally applied ones. If the person's driving is up to scratch then it's irrelevant, you give them a bit of space for a minute and you'll know soon enough by their driving that they're either not a learner or are fairly experienced.


  • #46
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    http://www.fiannafail.ie/news/entry/kennedy-says-m1-upgrade-plan-does-not-go-far-enough/
    KENNEDY SAYS M1 UPGRADE PLAN DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH

    Posted on 24/05/10 by Michael Kennedy
    Dublin North T.D. Michael Kennedy has welcomed the public consultation that is taking place in respect of plans to add a third lane to the M1 between the Dublin Airport interchange and the Drinan interchange but has called on the NRA to be more ambitious in its planning.

    “I have been calling, for some time now, for a third lane to be added to the M1 up as far as Balbriggan. The NRA says its current plan is aimed at easing congestion and this will be welcomed by commuters.”

    “However it fails to plan for the traffic volumes that will be experienced arising from the new deepwater port and Business Park planned for Bremore, Balbriggan. Bremore is being designed to have the deepest berths on the east coast with huge capacity for imports and exports.”

    “As a member of the Oireachtas Transport Committee I have seen what happens when adequate provision is not made for the future. I want the NRA to begin planning for the third lane between the Drinan interchange and Dublin Airport to be extended all the way to Balbriggan.”

    “In the meantime I welcome the NRA’s comments that it expects to fully fund its planned development on the M1 this year and hopes construction will begin in August. I understand the project will take approximately 15 months to complete and I hope the impact on traffic in the area can be kept to a minimum during that time,” concluded Deputy Kennedy.


  • #47
    Geogregor
    Registered Users Posts: 397 ✭✭Geogregor


    Where is Drinan? I can't find it on Google maps.


  • #48
    Jayuu
    Registered Users Posts: 761 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    "I understand the project will take approximately 15 months to complete and I hope the impact on traffic in the area can be kept to a minimum during that time"

    Holy Mad Cow! How can it take fifteen months to build what is effectively around 5-6km of extra lanes?


  • #49
    nordydan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭nordydan


    Geogregor wrote: »
    Where is Drinan? I can't find it on Google maps.

    First junction north of Airport


  • #50
    Jayuu
    Registered Users Posts: 761 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    Actually according to Google Maps its around 2.2 km in either direction and that's allowing a little space on either side of the junction.


  • #51
    darkman2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,632 ✭✭✭darkman2


    What they are proposing is an upgrade for a 2km stretch of road. Rediculously short sighted IMO and it won't make a blind bit of difference. Why put up with months of delays just for an extra lane over 2km's?


    Also 15 feckin months for 2 extra 2,000m lanes!? lol. Something not right there.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement