Upgrade of the M7 from 2 to 3 lanes between Naas and the M9 junction

mysterious

BluntGuy wrote: »

I have to agree with Mysterious on this one.

Whenever this is built, it needs to be properly future-proofed. That does mean no messing about when it comes to the bridges. Make them wide-enough for D4M. It may not be needed for 30 years, but if and when it is needed, it'll make the job easier.

I'm wondering if it's possible to widen the Naas ball flyover without knocking it. It is wide enough, but the pillars are too close to the verges.

Going SB, there is at least 5metre embankment that is adjacent to the SB slip joining. The NB section 5metre embankment going onto the Naas road is the NB loop heading to Dublin.

Could the shift theses pillars, by building a central pillar, thus taking out the two adjacent ones. The beams that carry the road were replaced when the Naas road was upgraded.

This would give 3running lanes + hard shoulder each way and possibly a verge.

I would prefer to see them building another bridge right next to it, the arrangment of the existing road layout is fine.

Irish and Proud

mysterious wrote: »

I wonder how they are going to sort out the Naas ballflyover.
I remember when the naas road upgrade was going on they repaired this bridge rather than widening it.

Good god, I was just so pissed, when I seen this illogic. The road here was at capactiy for the last 5 years. When the Naas road was opened people were asking why didnt they widen the Naas bypass.

The country council and the NRA ignored this again, and just spent a fortune resurfacing the Naas bypass.

I really get so ****ing pissed off at the idiocy of this country. Please learn and knock these bridges and replace them with a proper wide lane bridge. We don't learn in this country we have a habit of doing as sure it will do.

It won't do, if you go back 10 years later and spend millions rebuilding something that should of been built first hand.:mad:

...or maybe it's their intention after all - remember how cosy the relationship between the government and the builders etc is - like it's jobs for the boys - and we the taxpayer get the honourable privilege of paying for it!!! :rolleyes::mad:

Regards!

leitrim lad

im hopeing it goes ahead in the next year or so naas/ newbridge a bit dead this weather on the work front,would help the area

Irish and Proud

mysterious wrote: »

Could the shift theses pillars, by building a central pillar, thus taking out the two adjacent ones. The beams that carry the road were replaced when the Naas road was upgraded.

...no, the deck reinforcement would be a problem as the two span arrangement would result in different points of contra-flexure (different bending stresses) along the deck. Unfortunately, the only thing for it is the jack-hammer. While they're at it, a four lane replacement could be built.

Regards!

L1011

Was checking out the bridges when driving this route today. If this was to be done on the cheap I think we'd get away with one bridge replacement - the last on the old Naas Bypass has space for three lanes and not even a narrow hard strip under it; the others could take 3 plus a meagre hard shoulder; one of them could even take full 3+HS no bother.

jmkennedyie

FYI the Sallins Bypass / Osbertstown scheme involves two new bridges over M7 for the interchange, one just East and one just West of where current farm access bridge exists. I think the farm bridge is not in use and would be demolished. If they built these new bridges would give road capacity to demolish & rebuild Maulin bridge if necessary.

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

Was checking out the bridges when driving this route today. If this was to be done on the cheap I think we'd get away with one bridge replacement - the last on the old Naas Bypass has space for three lanes and not even a narrow hard strip under it; the others could take 3 plus a meagre hard shoulder; one of them could even take full 3+HS no bother.

Nope your wrong.
There has to be barriers alongside the pillars and that takes up room.

There is no room on any of the current Naas bypass bridges for 3 lanes and HS.:rolleyes:

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

Nope your wrong.
There has to be barriers alongside the pillars and that takes up room.

There is no room on any of the current Naas bypass bridges for 3 lanes and HS.:rolleyes:

Could you tell the NRA that, seeing as central pillars are now frequently blended in to Jersey step barriers on schemes across the country.

Once again, please stop making up specifications that don't exist.

There is also no minimum width for H/S on an Irish motorway - have you see the estuary bridge on the M1?

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

Could you tell the NRA that, seeing as central pillars are now frequently blended in to Jersey step barriers on schemes across the country.

Once again, please stop making up specifications that don't exist.

There is also no minimum width for H/S on an Irish motorway - have you see the estuary bridge on the M1?

I'm not making up specificatations. That MEDIAN is NOT wide enough for for 2 x 3.5running lanes, 2x 1 metre strip, and 2 HS.

The existing H.S is only 2.5metres. Your not going to get a another 3.5running lane in there. The Naas bypass median is wide but not that wide. It's actually pathetic to even hear you are saying it will fit. The Left pillars are right beside the HS.

If you really could pay attention to things like I do. The The median width is narrower than the other side:P

You really really need to go back and look again.:D:D
I'd hate to take your advice on this one. When we Irish people make enough blunders with future proofing our infrastructure. I think just like everyone on this board since the bridges are in need of servicing they may as well go.

Bards

mysterious wrote: »

When we Irish people make enough blunders with future proofing our infrastructure. .

you really are a ticket Mysterious. You give out about the NRA when they do future proof roads and then you moan that they shouldn't be Motorway just normal DC or WS2

you can't have it both ways.

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

I'm not making up specificatations. That MEDIAN is NOT wide enough for for 2 x 3.5running lanes, 2x 1 metre strip, and 2 HS.

The existing H.S is only 2.5metres. Your not going to get a another 3.5running lane in there. The Naas bypass median is wide but not that wide. It's actually pathetic to even hear you are saying it will fit. The Left pillars are right beside the HS.

If you really could pay attention to things like I do. The The median width is narrower than the other side:P

You really really need to go back and look again.:D:D
I'd hate to take your advice on this one. When we Irish people make enough blunders with future proofing our infrastructure. I think just like everyone on this board since the bridges are in need of servicing they may as well go.

I'd have the view you don't think like anyone else on this board...

The median isn't 7 metres + width of pillar wide under the bridges; that is true. However, the H/S under all bar one bridge is not as far out as it is capable of being. On cheaply widened motorways across Europe, there is often no H/S under bridges.

There is sufficient room to widen the road to D3M without high costs - at worst, the last bridge (westbound) would need to be replaced. We are not going to have the money to widen it with bridge replacements any time in the next decade.

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

I'd have the view you don't think like anyone else on this board...

The median isn't 7 metres + width of pillar wide under the bridges; that is true. However, the H/S under all bar one bridge is not as far out as it is capable of being. On cheaply widened motorways across Europe, there is often no H/S under bridges.

There is sufficient room to widen the road to D3M without high costs - at worst, the last bridge (westbound) would need to be replaced. We are not going to have the money to widen it with bridge replacements any time in the next decade.

Wouldn't it be cheaper if we didn't think like you and the NRA. Because it's this lack of foresight is the reason we keep coming back to these roads every decade.

All the Naas Bypass bridges are the same width, you clearly have no idea what your talking about at this stage.


There is 64,000 vehicles a day using this road. Almost 10,000 more than the total capacity of a D2M lane road.

This road needs future proofing, not a 2 minute fix.

The Naas bypass is one of the fastest growth sections in terms of traffic and is way above the average.

We have to many people in the NRA and the design office with your stance on road building. It's turning out to be a disaster. With all the Inter urbans coming on, I really don't see how it is cost benifetive to save these old bridges that are really inadequate to sustain future traffic considering they will have to be replaced in the next decade. The rust is even appearing and the bridges are red in colour due to this. These are the oldest motorway bridges in the country, It's just not logical to save them while upgrading the Bypass.

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

I'd have the view you don't think like anyone else on this board...

The median isn't 7 metres + width of pillar wide under the bridges; that is true.

Okay the width of a jersey pillar in 1 metre strips is 3metres min.
Take this of the 5-6 metre median. You barely have enough room for a Running lane never mind a HS.

HS at present is 2.5metre. Converting this to a 3.5metre running lane, plue barrier to protect the Left pillar and a Jersey barrier on the central pillar, means its going to be very tight for a D3M with no HS. The traffic for a D3M road is 93,000 A.A.D.T. It would be deemed insanity to keep these bridges when you can bet these bridges after your idea of an upgrade will have to go anyway in the near future. So why not just get it right NOW.

There is no room, and it's just a waste of time doing all this when the existing bridges are outdated. Plus I don't like this busy section of motorway without HS either.

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

All the Naas Bypass bridges are the same width, you clearly have no idea what your talking about at this stage.

There are different distinct types of central pillar on the bridges; so this is clearly impossible. Do you even KNOW the road in question?

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

So why not just get it right NOW.

Because we have no money. If it is to be built with new bridges, it will not get built.

mysterious wrote: »

Plus I don't like this busy section of motorway without HS either.

There would be H/S except under the bridges. Have you ever seen the M25 in the UK? Makes the Naas Bypass look like a country boreen. No hard shoulders under most bridges.

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

Because we have no money. If it is to be built with new bridges, it will not get built.

Money is circular, it circulates.

The money is always there,
We are "slaves" in this reality. Thats why we say things like. There is "no money"

I'm throwing it out there, don't know if people will understand what I'm getting at. But Noel Dempsey has money he's building his dream house in Meath at the minute. Bankers have the money. But right now they want to put us into hibernation.

There would be H/S except under the bridges. Have you ever seen the M25 in the UK? Makes the Naas Bypass look like a country boreen. No hard shoulders under most bridges.

So what, you don't want the Naas road upgraded properly?
M25 is far older and far wider than the Naas bypass. There is alot of bridges much much wider than our bridges. Some don't have a HS, I know. But alot are been replaced. At the minutre they are widening the road to 4/5 lanes each way.

The Naas bypass bridges do need to go. There is only three, it actually won't cost a whole lot more, since these bridges have to be worked on regardless. It would be saving alot to actually replace them now, then doing a half arse job only to replace it in 10 years.

L1011

The M25 opened in 1986. Two sections of it are older than the Naas Bypass, that is all. They're also only widening the road further on certain sections.


And you're delusional if you think the state can even easily borrow money at this stage.

ardmacha

We are "slaves" in this reality

Quite. Some of us base our proposals on reality. Tough, isn't it.

Others though don't have restrict themselves to reality, much more fun.

spacetweek

mysterious wrote: »

Wouldn't it be cheaper if we didn't think like you and the NRA. Because it's this lack of foresight is the reason we keep coming back to these roads every decade.

We have to many people in the NRA and the design office with your stance on road building. It's turning out to be a disaster.

This is rich coming from the guy that doesn't want an M9 on the grounds that it isn't needed, while the existing road winds it way through narrow streets in medieval towns.

mysterious wrote: »

Money is circular, it circulates.

Round spinning money! In a washing machine!

spacetweek

Bumping this as two relevant parts have moved to public consultation (thanks to richiek83 on Skyscrapercity).
Planning doc on Kildare Co-Co's website.

- Widening of the M7 from Naas North to M7/M9 split (Jct 9-11)
- Building of the Osberstown interchange (presumably Jct 9A) and R407 Sallins Western Bypass.

The plans will be on display on 29th May in Aras Cill Dara, Naas. Pity they aren't on the web though, at least as far as I can see.

munchkin_utd

spacetweek wrote: »

Bumping this as two relevant parts have moved to public consultation (thanks to richiek83 on Skyscrapercity).
Planning doc on Kildare Co-Co's website.

- Widening of the M7 from Naas North to M7/M9 split (Jct 9-11)
- Building of the Osberstown interchange (presumably Jct 9A) and R407 Sallins Western Bypass.

The plans will be on display on 29th May in Aras Cill Dara, Naas. Pity they aren't on the web though, at least as far as I can see.

Oberstown junction seems to be planned to be to the west of the existing road that goes over the motorway and is dependent on the Salins bypass. links in to the north with the proposed Salins bypass and to the south the Western Distributor which links into the current Salins Road
http://kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/NationalRoadsDesignOffice/M7OsberstownInterchangeMotorwayScheme2008/LinkToDocument,16668,en.pdf
and heres an overview incl the salins by pass
http://kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/NationalRoadsDesignOffice/M7OsberstownInterchangeMotorwayScheme2008/LinkToDocument,16683,en.pdf
and in the following map you can see how the new Oberstown junction is key to that entire area being developed (not that putting vast estates and large industrial facilities down country bohereens would be beyond irish local councils!).
http://kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/NationalRoadsDesignOffice/M7OsberstownInterchangeMotorwayScheme2008/LinkToDocument,16690,en.pdf

A whole heap of other documents are here on the entire by pass scheme:
http://kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/NationalRoadsDesignOffice/M7OsberstownInterchangeMotorwayScheme2008/

_Kaiser_

No doubt then this grand plan means lowering the limit to 100 as far as the CArlow/Waterford turnoff then too? Wonderful! :rolleyes:

Aard

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

No doubt then this grand plan means lowering the limit to 100 as far as the CArlow/Waterford turnoff then too? Wonderful! :rolleyes:

The unfortunate reality is that adding driving lanes makes a road less safe, as it increases the incidence of weaving. Increasing safety either means widening lanes, improving camber, or reducing curve radii - all of which are very expensive and disruptive to do retrospectively. A simpler way to increase safety is to reduce the speed limit. It means that while an individual's journey time is lengthened slightly, the dramatically increased throughput of vehicles means that there is an aggregate time saving for all the road's users.

brokenarms

http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/local/call-to-build-sallins-bypass-1-3805923

Dear god . Please make them deal with Sallins.

dowlingm

Here's an idea - how about improving public transport options so that hundreds of millions won't have to be borrowed in capital expense?

Over here, the regional buses are now allowed to run in the hard shoulder at low speeds (PDF) to allow them priority over congested traffic without building extra lanes.

JeffK88

Newhall junction to be rebuilt. Moved down to the Newbridge Dual Carraigeway and designed around that. Heres the emerging route

http://www.kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/NationalRoadsDesignOffice/M7NaastoNewbridgeBy-PassUpgradeScheme2013/EmergingPreferredRoute/PublicConsultation/M7%20Naas%20to%20Newbridge%20By-Pass%20Upgrade%20Scheme%20DRAWING.pdf

ardmacha

The unfortunate reality is that adding driving lanes makes a road less safe, as it increases the incidence of weaving.

This theory is very suspect on rural sections with a long distance between junctions. There are many countries where D3M routes have a higher speed limit. It would be entirely ridiculous if this section is widened and the speed limit is reduced.

Aard

ardmacha wrote: »

This theory is very suspect on rural sections with a long distance between junctions. There are many countries where D3M routes have a higher speed limit. It would be entirely ridiculous if this section is widened and the speed limit is reduced.

Probably so. I'm not extremely familiar with the stretches in question, and didn't mean to imply that the speed limit should or indeed is going to be reduced.

_Kaiser_

Aard wrote: »

Probably so. I'm not extremely familiar with the stretches in question, and didn't mean to imply that the speed limit should or indeed is going to be reduced.

I'd say we can safely assume it will though as the rest of the 3-lane stretch is 100 and this will be a continuation of that - same way as the M50 is 100 for almost all of its length too until it becomes a 2 lane road after J14

MGWR

ardmacha wrote: »

This theory is very suspect on rural sections with a long distance between junctions. There are many countries where D3M routes have a higher speed limit. It would be entirely ridiculous if this section is widened and the speed limit is reduced

The allegedly ridiculous has not happened before?

The practical speed limit is going to go down either way. Wider urban dual carriageways and motorways experience higher congestion.