Ted, thats mad, Ted.

Victor

http://www.nra.ie/News/DownloadableDocumentation/d1175.PDF (1455 kB) - last page (N3/M50)

ravenhead

Why ..... Oh Why?/?/ Aren't things bad enough

LFCFan

what in the name of all things sane is that supposed to be? Looks like someone just droped a pile of spaghetti on the plans and went with that.

seamus

At least it'll solve some of the problems with idiots deliberately choosing the wrong lane and switching at the last minute (or not).

The one good thing is that a traffic accident or broken light will no longer stop everyone and hold up the traffic in all 4 directions.

Borzoi

Should we laugh or cry

But they look like some right dogs abortions of layouts

Sleipnir

flyovers, the only way to go. Roundabouts cause buildups of traffic but the Irish are obsessed with them because they're cheap. Flyovers, while expensive keep the traffic moving.

mike65

Its so big it just might work!



Mike.

halkar

So in year 2020 maybe when the rest of the world start using flying cars we might finish building this Then that just maybe
Can anyone figure out how were we suppose to go from Red Cow direction to N7? :rolleyes: I don't see anything flying over there

Victor

Originally posted by halkar
Can anyone figure out how were we suppose to go from Red Cow direction to N7? :rolleyes: I don't see anything flying over there

Because traffic from Naas to Crumlin and vice-versa will use the existing roundabout. Traffic approaching the junction on the M50 from Tallaght and points south and heading for Crumlin crosses this traffic at the red hatched traffic lights.

Tom Dunne

Having driven around a lot of Europe and the US, and seeing how easy it is to get around, I think it is about time something like this was done. Roundabouts on major intersections along the M50 are nothing more than comical.

But these type of intersections should have been put in when the roads were built, not 5-10 years later. Yes, I know we probably couldn't afford them at the time, but look at the cost of putting them in now.

John R

The N3 and N1 junction proposals look ok, but the N7 (mad cow) will still need several sets of lights at the intersections marked in red which is not good enough for that junction. If anything can be learned from the current situation it is that these things should be made to the highest standards in the first place. If that is built it will need re-designing in another ten years.

The N3 plan is absolutely stupid, a straight route citybound on the N3 will have seven reverse bends and a box junction. This is just because they want to use the current roundabout overbridge instead of building the junction properly.

seamus

Originally posted by John R
The N3 and N1 junction proposals look ok, but the N7 (mad cow) will still need several sets of lights at the intersections marked in red which is not good enough for that junction. If anything can be learned from the current situation it is that these things should be made to the highest standards in the first place. If that is built it will need re-designing in another ten years.

With the exception, *maybe* of where the slip off the M50 northbound meets the N7, there's no need for lights anywhere in that junction. All traffic is travelling in the same direction at each point where traffic meets, so it should be easily implemented as a series of traffic merges.
The junction of the slip and the N7 could be implemented indentically to the slip at the N4 and there's no need for traffic lights.

Andrew Duffy

Two of the designs are quite good - the N4 interchange looks like an unrolled cloverleaf, but one or two of the slip roads merge or demerge on the right. The M1 interchange is in fact the highest-powered design for a motorway T-junction, a directional T, albeit with a roundabout underneath it. These (without the roundabout) are popular in the USA. The N7 really needs a better straight-through path, and the N3 interchange is bizzare.

John R

Originally posted by seamus
With the exception, *maybe* of where the slip off the M50 northbound meets the N7, there's no need for lights anywhere in that junction. All traffic is travelling in the same direction at each point where traffic meets, so it should be easily implemented as a series of traffic merges.
The junction of the slip and the N7 could be implemented indentically to the slip at the N4 and there's no need for traffic lights.

Unfortunately you are wrong. Traffic control would be needed at 3 of the four red areas, the one you mention woukd definitely require lights because traffic from M50 northbound - N7 City bound would have to cross the N7 Southbound through traffic in a very short space (100metres or less) this would not be possible with both streams travelling at speed. A dedicated lane from M50 Northbound to N7 Citybound is needed.

The section where N7 Citybound meets traffic from the M50 North (yellow) might get away without controls if enough lanes (4 imo) were provided but the plan shows 4 lanes converging into 3 at quite a severe angle.

The other two sections in red would need traffic lights because of junctions with secondary roads in close proximity to motorway slip roads. Traffic from these secondary roads tryimg to access the far right lanes would have to cross up to 5 lanes of high speed traffic at right angles.

seamus

Originally posted by John R
Unfortunately you are wrong. Traffic control would be needed at 3 of the four red areas, the one you mention woukd definitely require lights because traffic from M50 northbound - N7 City bound would have to cross the N7 Southbound through traffic in a very short space (100metres or less) this would not be possible with both streams travelling at speed. A dedicated lane from M50 Northbound to N7 Citybound is needed.

Ah yes, I missed that. I thought there was a separate flyover carrying people from M50 northbound to N7 inbound.
I also missed the sideroads
Shouldn't they be turned into sliproads too, and not direct junctions? It may make it a bit weird, but at least there would be no traffic lights, the bane of the Red Cow roundabout.

uberwolf

so the only problem is going to be Irish drivers then? :dunno: and as for no traffic lights don't count on it, we're amongst the few to have them on roundabouts anyway!!!

a_ominous

Those drawings need to be done again: why draw the plan from a different angle to the photos? Is the NRA trying to obfuscate the issue? Typical cr@p from a government agency! If they were trying to clarify things, they didn't do a good job. I can read maps, schematics, etc, but this sort of effort doesn't help the PR excercise.
The only good thing I can say about the NRA is at least they knocked the toll booths down on M50 at Red Cow before they ever collected a toll (way back in late 80s).

halkar

It is all down to bad planning and a big mess now. Look at the picture below and tell me how many traffic lights you see

It is from a third world country

Andrew Duffy

What tranche of Dublin's suburbs do you propose demolishing to build such a super highway? And how do you propose importing the cheap labour and non existent environmental policies governing the extraction of concrete that keep the cost of such engineering in Turkey so low?

toll booths down on M50 at Red Cow

The story is a long one, but if the motorway had been tolled at the entrances as planned, it wouldn't have any traffic problems. However, considering the number of drivers paying the mainline toll at the moment, perhaps the national roads interchanging with the M50 would be crammed with parked traffic...

halkar

Originally posted by Andrew Duffy
What tranche of Dublin's suburbs do you propose demolishing to build such a super highway? And how do you propose importing the cheap labour and non existent environmental policies governing the extraction of concrete that keep the cost of such engineering in Turkey so low?...

It doesn't have to be super duper but when the government was planing those roads here I am sure they were only thinking of themselves with their lands around the roads and cowboy builders in the government that only give these contracts to themselves with the cost of fortune to us taxpayers. I rather get to see these contracts to be outsourced and given to lowest bidder with higher quaility. Instead of paying Billions for few Kms of road we could save some of the money and improve other quaility of life like health services, schools etc.

environmental policies governing the extraction of concrete ? I don't see this as much of an arguement, we do extract concreate here too. What about the environmental effect of idling cars on M50 and surrounding roads? When you cut the journey times you also cut the time people use their cars and the emissions from cars.
But who cares, not the cowboys in government anyway

Andrew Duffy

I don't want to start any type of flame war, but by far the highest material cost involved in building roads is the cost of concrete - of course the cost of land and labour are higher. Concrete production is appalingly filthy, and even in Ireland, where environmental protection laws are lax, this is reflected in it costing a lot.

Incidentally, there must be traffic lights in front of the small red-roofed building in the centre right of the picture, unless there is a give way system in place?

halkar

No flaming. I don't know about concrete laws here but if you look at rest of the Europe and bigger countries like UK and Germany, they use a lot of concrete too.
I still think it is the government trying to steal our tax money and I rather see our tax money used better and if that means to give road contracts to other countries so let it be.
Look at the latest scandal of the national stadium, it was going to cost almost a billion!!!:eek: Many countries built twice the size of that for 1/4 of the money. Look at the cost of M50? Not even finished and we pay toll for it for the sake of using few kilometers of it and most of the time crawling :rolleyes: Most of the toll roads I know in Europe are not car parks.

As for the pic, no lights there you can see it here

by the way, you don't pay for that road above, you only pay when you leaving the city where you get your ticket and pay when you leave the motorway depends on your distance taken.

Kaner

Here's my 2 cents:

M1/M50 Interchange - looks perfect - even the roundabout makes sense here.

M1/N3 Interchange - looks ugly and expensive - but it looks like it will work well because it is big and will handle a lot of traffic.

M1/N4 Interchange - clever design. I hope the ramps that exit the M50 have have 2 lanes. Because of the junctions small size, it looks like it will not be of high traffic capacity.

M50/N7 Interchange - depressing. So they are going to do 1/3 of the job, and come back in 3 years and spend another 2 years fixing it again the third time around. There is really no excuse for not doing it right the second time round.

Citybound N7 to southbound M50 needs a flyover like the one for southbound M50 to westbound N7. Otherwise the M50 will be backed up for miles each day. The cloverleaf loops proposed are so tight that traffic will slow to around 30 mph and merge with the main motorway at low speed, slowing all three lanes down as people cut across the motorway to get to the faster moving lane. Cars hitting the brakes on motorways cause the cars behind to hit the brakes and so on until traffic comes to a standstill.

The M50 from the Tallaght to the N4 interchange needs to be upgraded to 4 lanes to absorb the N7 traffic.

M50/N7 and M50/N4 are good examples of a situation where open interchange architecture would have made it much easier and less expensive to expand the capacity of the interchanges. I would love to hear an answer to the open architecture question from the people responsible for the M50 design, besides we didn't have the money. It would not have been any more expensive than building it the way they did.

The LUAS fiasco morons need to be shot with balls of their own ****e.