N9 Updates (Fingers Crossed this time!!)

road_high

At last it seems to be happening....From KK county council;

RE: N9/N10 Kilcullen to Waterford N9 Road Improvement Scheme
(1)
'Phase 1, which is essentially the Carlow bypass section and is 17k long
will start this month, phase 2 from Waterford to Knocktopher is out to
tender for the main contract and is expected to start in the Autumn
while phases 3 and 4 are expected to start in 2008 with a 2010
completion of construction. Phase 3 is from Kilcullen to
Prumplestown(just south of Castledermot) and phase 4 is from Knocktopher
to Powerstown(near the landfill south of Carlow)'

(2)
Due to the size of the route , for construction purposes, the route from
Kilcullen to Waterford is divided into 4 Phases;

I (Carlow by-pass) - Powerstown to Prumplestown, near Castledermot is
scheduled to commence in the next couple of months.

2 ; Waterford to Knocktopher is scheduled to commence in September
/October 2006.

3 Prumplestown to Kilcullen and 4 Knocktopher to Powerstown are
scheduled to commence in late 2007 or early 2008 at latest.

Waterford By-pass Road Scheme (involving new bridge) is also scheduled
to commence in the next couple of months. Entire route - all phases - is
scheduled to be completed by 2010. Phases 1 and 3 are being managed by
Kildare County Council; phases 2 and 4 are being managed by Kilkenny
County Council.

Please also refer to the National Roads Authority website wwww.nra.ie
as it contains maps/updates on all major National Roads projects.

mike65

Those of us at the 'wrong end' of the N9 can only dream of the day...!

Mike.

Pfungstadter

Is it not going to be motorway?
N9 instead of M9?

Is the motorway designation now just for tolled roads?
All new road like the N2 (even though it's 120km/h is non motorway)
and the N11 are just normal rights of way, roads this fast should have motorway restrictions (motorway minimum speed should be 80km/h not 50km/h)

Think the term motorway is becoming redundant now, with the lack of it's use on future roads, just bits here and there.

road_high

No unfortunately the best we can expect is a dual carriageway with N instead of M..Anything would be better than that pile of rubbish that is the N9 at present so we should begrateful for what we get really!!

I think M roads have superior engerineering with less curves etc and hence the 120kmh instead of 100kmh speed limits, but cost more!

Traffic

Work has allready started on the carlow bypass section of the road. Underway a few weeks now
I think the official sod turning/photo opp is going to take place in the coming weeks

mike65

The trouble with dual carriagways is that all sorts can use them ie agri traffic, heards of cattle etc.

Mike.

road_high

Yea, I saw that the other day, near Tinryland GAA pitch theyre clearing the way 4 the road beside the Rathcrogue hotel there..
Is that all sorted out, the row with the NRA and the local GAA club there?

Fool 5000

Yeah it must be if they are doing ground clearance.

Is the road itself HQDC standard or motorway?

spacetweek

Fool 5000 wrote:

Yeah it must be if they are doing ground clearance.

Is the road itself HQDC standard or motorway?

The NRA started saying the road would be HQDC, not motorway, about 5 years ago. It's a less important road than e.g. N7/8, so motorway probably isn't needed.

What I want to know is why any sections of the N7 and N8 are dualler though! Roads that important should be future-proofed.

Andrew Duffy

There is no physical difference between a high-quality dual carriageway and a motorway. Either type of road can have a 120km/h speed limit.

spacetweek

Andrew Duffy wrote:

There is no physical difference between a high-quality dual carriageway and a motorway. Either type of road can have a 120km/h speed limit.

There are often a number of physical differences, though in practice they don't have much of an effect on the max speed limit. The definition of a motorway is nothing to do with speed limits, it's all about number and width of lanes and whether or not the road can be accessed directly from the side or is it only at interchanges. For example, when the Naas Road N7 opens it will be 6-lane motorway standard but won't be classed as a motorway. OTOH the Scholarstown-Ballinteer section of the M50 has a speed limit less than 120 even though it's a motorway. So it's all a rich tapestry.

That said many of the roads in this country being classified as HQDC instead of motorway are often cop-outs to satisfy farmers whose land is being severed. I'm not into the idea as I have a mental picture of Mick O'Hara swinging out across the road in front of you in his tractor as you approach Cork. We should be taking a tough line and not allowing this sort of thing.

Aidan1

From my understanding of it, the only practical difference between an HQDC and a Motorway is the signage, all of the engineering design criteria are to motorway standard, including lane and carraigeway width, sightlines and fully grade separated interchanges. So there will be no 'Mick' anything pulling out in front of you on the dual carraigeway in a tractor. That is not to say that he won't be on the road; the main consequence of having this type of description is that type of local (ie non national) traffic will be allowed.

Then again, having the road a motorway seems to make no difference to some users. The legal stipulation here is "No Vehicles under 50kmh allowed" - the problem being that many modern agricultural tractors have 50 kmh gearboxes, and some will go as fast as 65kmh, so there is no legal way of stopping this type of use. And once some tractors can use it, everybody can have a go. Even if people are pulled over for it, they can't be convicted of anything so long as they can notionally say they were doing more than 50kmh. Problem is that tractors don't have the visibility, power (slower on hills) or safety features and the driver can be as young as 16*. Its only one of a number of problems with the policing of Motorways in this country though, along with 'rightlane only' drivers, cars towing trailers and mopeds.

*Yeah, I know, provisional licence, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone.

Andrew Duffy

spacetweek wrote:

The definition of a motorway is nothing to do with speed limits, it's all about number and width of lanes and whether or not the road can be accessed directly from the side or is it only at interchanges.

What defines a motorway is the motorway order signed by the Minister for Transport; the road doesn't have to be built to the full motorway standard (also known as the high quality dual carriageway standard).

spacetweek wrote:

For example, when the Naas Road N7 opens it will be 6-lane motorway standard

It will be nowhere close to motorway/HQDC standard, as it will have multiple private accesses, a right turn at Newlands cross and a low design speed.

spacetweek wrote:

OTOH the Scholarstown-Ballinteer section of the M50 has a speed limit less than 120 even though it's a motorway.

That's because it has a design speed of 100km/h. The whole M50 is having its design speed lowered (by narrowing the lanes) as part of its upgrade. Hopefully the average speed attained on it will be increased though.

spacetweek wrote:

That said many of the roads in this country being classified as HQDC instead of motorway are often cop-outs to satisfy farmers whose land is being severed.

I agree with that, all right.

Andrew Duffy

The summary of the National Road Needs survey has a section that briefly describes the motorway and high quality dual carriageway standard:

http://www.nra.ie/PublicationsResources/DownloadableDocumentation/GeneralPublications/file,595,en.PDF

murphaph

There's a more comprehensive document than that available from the NRA and it clearly states that a HQDC is to be built identically to a motorway.

As already pointed out, you could have any road classed as a motorway, indeed there are single carriageway motorways in Britain (though the legal process of creating a motorway is totally different)!

In the UK a motorway route never constitutes a right of way, does anyone know if that's the case here? I don't think it is as any road can be made a motorway here with a simple SI signed by the minister (however compensation may then be due to affected landowners who will be denied access permanantly)

I think the HQDCs currently planned/built are a cop out but to all intents and purposes they're fine.

Pfungstadter

If HQDC are going to be the norm then why don't we just get rid of the motorway designation all together if they have no plan to complete the network anyway.

There is no point confusing people and having a fragmented looking network. Just make it all primary route and have restrictions in certin parts.
Make it all green and N.

Same number and signage the whole length of any route

spacetweek

Andrew Duffy wrote:

The summary of the National Road Needs survey has a section that briefly describes the motorway and high quality dual carriageway standard:

According to that document, the two are definitely NOT the same. The HQDC is clearly stated to allow left-in-left-out turns to provide access to side roads and presumably properties, so the scenario of Mick pulling out in his tractor is very real.

Andrew Duffy wrote:

It will be nowhere close to motorway/HQDC standard, as it will have multiple private accesses, a right turn at Newlands cross and a low design speed.

True; I was referring specifically to the part being reconstructed, starting just inside the Kildare border and ending at Naas. However, on closer inspection, it turns out that even the reconstructed section will still have some private accesses.

Pfungstadter wrote:

If HQDC are going to be the norm then why don't we just get rid of the motorway designation all together if they have no plan to complete the network anyway.

They should be going in the opposite direction IMO. The intention should be to eventually upgrade and redesignate important sections as motorways when it's justified, particularly on the N7 and N8.

Pfungstadter

spacetweek wrote:

They should be going in the opposite direction IMO. The intention should be to eventually upgrade and redesignate important sections as motorways when it's justified, particularly on the N7 and N8.

I'd prefer that. I thought the M network was to replace the N network. But this isn't going to happen. In new zealand the motorways share the same highway number as the non motorway sections. So that the road from wellington to Orkeland (Auckland) is S.H.1 (state highway 1) the whole way.

Aidan1

The HQDC is clearly stated to allow left-in-left-out turns to provide access to side roads and presumably properties, so the scenario of Mick pulling out in his tractor is very real.

It may allow it, but left in left out turns are very rare on these roads. Just have a look at the EIS diagrams for any of the new HQDC. And since these are almost all new alignments, there are no properties fronting on to the roads, which is why the design speeds can be as high as they are.

In most cases, they can be upgraded to Motorways with an SI and some signage. It would mean that they'd have to be policed as Motorways though, and local traffic (like tractors, L drivers and cars towing trailers) removed.

murphaph

spacetweek wrote:

According to that document, the two are definitely NOT the same. The HQDC is clearly stated to allow left-in-left-out turns to provide access to side roads and presumably properties, so the scenario of Mick pulling out in his tractor is very real.

That 4 page pdf is wrong, or at least it totally contradicts what's in the DMRB (design manual, a 200 odd page detailed technical manual used by the NRA, originally a UK publication of the Highways Agency but modified for use in the RoI). The DMRB doesn't even have a chapter on HQDC as it just refers the designers to the section on motorways! It just says something to the effect that "geometric design standards are identical to those of motorways" and that's it. So I don't know who screwed up and stuck that LILO paragraph in that 4 page synopss but it's wrong (I've seen mistakes in the Traffic Signs Manual so it's not unheard of for NRA in house publications to contain errors!). The Naas road upgrade s NOT HQDC, nor is any road with LILO, they are just grade separated DC. There is a difference, the A1 is being upgraded to grade separated DC but NOT HQDC for example.

Edit: Go here, ownload the self extracting zip file (only on broadband mind, it's 20MB), open volume 6 folder and open NRA-TD-9-05_JAN2005 and then go to section 6, page 2 (page 38 on adobe) and look at what it says in that big table. I'm assuming 0.5% of readers will bother doing the above so here it is;



(Note that there are NO minor road junctions allowed on HQDC, compare 5C and 7A above! They are the same apart from the legal "motorway restrictions" applied to a motorway which expressly prohibits direct accesses (and forces the compensation to a landowner who woul never get PP for an access onto a HQDC anyway, ludicrous!)

Now here's a few moe pages on......(note the only reference to HQDCs is to point you to the design criteria for motorways!)



Now the roads designers in the various regional design offices use these manuals, not a 4 page pdf for designing roads so please accept that HQDCs are the same in every respect to motorways apart from th legalities and signage/markings.

murphaph

Aidan1 wrote:

It would mean that they'd have to be policed as Motorways though, and local traffic (like tractors, L drivers and cars towing trailers) removed.

You can legally tow a trailer on a motorway and most modern tractors can maintain the min 50km/h which is too low a minimum speed IMO.

Aidan1

most modern tractors can maintain the min 50km/h

Some can, but most can't - they still use 40k boxes. But what Guard is going to test drive it and find out? The main problem, even with those that can notionally achieve 50k, is that they don't have the power to maintain that speed with a load up, specially on hills.

50k is a joke, the minimum should be 70kmh, and a ban on all vehicles running on green diesel from using any road with a speed limit in excess of 101kmh.

murphaph

Aidan1 wrote:

Some can, but most can't - they still use 40k boxes. But what Guard is going to test drive it and find out? The main problem, even with those that can notionally achieve 50k, is that they don't have the power to maintain that speed with a load up, specially on hills.

50k is a joke, the minimum should be 70kmh, and a ban on all vehicles running on green diesel from using any road with a speed limit in excess of 101kmh.

Totally agree and bow to your superior knowledge of agri-vehicles' powertrains!

I have edited my previous post on P1 of this thread to SHOW whith NRA documentation that HQDCs are in fact physically identical to motorways apart from signage and markings. I knew I'd find it eventually!

Aidan1

Hey, its a start.

I likes tractors, I do.

spacetweek

murphaph wrote:

That 4 page pdf is wrong, or at least it totally contradicts what's in the DMRB
<snip>
Now the roads designers in the various regional design offices use these manuals, not a 4 page pdf for designing roads so please accept that HQDCs are the same in every respect to motorways apart from th legalities and signage/markings.

I stand corrected! There's absolutely no difference apart from the vehicle restrictions. That was news to me.

Few other interesting things in there. There are two types of motorway, for example - the M50 is set to become 7A instead of 7B when they narrow its lanes a bit. There are also loads of types of duallers.

murphaph

spacetweek wrote:

I stand corrected! There's absolutely no difference apart from the vehicle restrictions. That was news to me.

No worries. It's hardly surprising confusion abounds when the NRA themselves put out documents like that 4 page pdf!

spacetweek wrote:

Few other interesting things in there. There are two types of motorway, for example - the M50 is set to become 7A instead of 7B when they narrow its lanes a bit. There are also loads of types of duallers.

Yeah, but imagine, even with all those classifications the upgraded Naas Rd won't fall into any one particular one of them! It's a mix of grade separated DC but with a couple of private accesses included. Still gonna be a great improvement over the sh!te that went before it. Remember the subsiding concrete slab sections near Rathcoole? thump-thump-thump arrrrghhh.

The other road on this island steadily being upgraded is the A1 in NI. That badly needs to have it's medians crossings closed up and a few more GSJs added.

icdg

So do the NRA have design standards for a D3M though?

They need to make the process of getting a motorway order easier, drop this extra compensation process for it simply being a motorway, and redesignation these HQDCs motorways. As far as I can see, the only reason they're not motorways really is placate farmers who would want to drive tractors on them. Unfortunately, this means you will have pedal-cyclists and pedastrians on them as well, which they really shouldn't be...

murphaph

icdg wrote:

So do the NRA have design standards for a D3M though?

I'm sure they're the same as D2M just with an extra lane. They probably just show D2 and assume the same is replicated across all lanes.

icdg wrote:

They need to make the process of getting a motorway order easier, drop this extra compensation process for it simply being a motorway, and redesignation these HQDCs motorways. As far as I can see, the only reason they're not motorways really is placate farmers who would want to drive tractors on them. Unfortunately, this means you will have pedal-cyclists and pedastrians on them as well, which they really shouldn't be...

There's nothing stopping a minister of transport from prohibiting those classes of vehicles (or indeed classes of driver such as L-drivers) while still allowing tractors. That's all catered for in the Roads Act 1993. I presume the Lynch Tunnel in Cork has these prohibitions in place (never been through it) like virtually all UK tunnels which aren't motorways have prohibitions on classes of traffic which is prohibited clearly signed. There are roads like this too all over the UK (maybe even the Westlink in Belfast, though I can't remember). Ideally of course we'd just reclassify them as motorways and be done with it. Where are the AA in this? Why aren't the caling for these roads to be motorways?

mackerski

murphaph wrote:

like virtually all UK tunnels which aren't motorways have prohibitions on classes of traffic which is prohibited clearly signed. There are roads like this too all over the UK (maybe even the Westlink in Belfast, though I can't remember).

The "trench" section of the Westlink already prohibits pedestrians, and the current improvement scheme running from the M1 to the trench will extend that restriction to cover the whole Westlink as far as its northern end at the traffic lights just short of the M2. The entire Westlink will be designated a "special road", the official name for a motorway. This leaves the door open to declare it part of the M1, but there's nothing official on whether this will happen.

(Full details)

Dermot

Victor

murphaph wrote:

As already pointed out, you could have any road classed as a motorway, indeed there are single carriageway motorways in Britain (though the legal process of creating a motorway is totally different)!

The M32 in Dublin is single carriageway.

murphaph wrote:

Edit: Go here, ownload the self extracting zip file (only on broadband mind, it's 20MB), open volume 6 folder and open NRA-TD-9-05_JAN2005 and then go to section 6, page 2 (page 38 on adobe) and look at what it says in that big table. I'm assuming 0.5% of readers will bother doing the above so here it is;

Which one is it?

Our man in Havana

Victor wrote:

The M32 in Dublin is single carriageway.

There are loads of these type motorways in the UK. See Here