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

M1/M4/M7 upgrades - new PPP?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,746 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    mysterious wrote: »
    The Naas bypass bridges are better off gone. They need cleaning up and refurbishment. I don't see the logic or how anyone in their right mind would want to keep those bridges with traffic levels already surpassing 65,000 cars a day. There is to many bridges there, and just widening the road to accomadate old ugly bridges, is nothing but laziness. The cross section width of the Naas bypass should be DM4 width if it ever needed to be widened. There is not enough room for D3M either, only on one side. The median is narrower on the SB side by a good margin. The existing barriers take a lot of space on the median to protect the bridge structures, as the bridges are not exactly newish. The left pillars are right up to the HS. I just think it ludricous, to put all the effort into upgrading this road with extra lanes while saving these bridges.

    I like jobs done right.


    Thank god I'm not pure Irish, I would go nuts. With the ah sure it's grand. It's why we always have reckless planning in this country. I'm sick of this nonsense. Ah sure it's grand like... feck it.



    I tell you what we do require, Irish people should have an eleventh commandment, I must not procastinate and be lazy about things.

    You are confusing "laziness" with "sense" here. Replacing overbridges is amazingly disruptive and hugely, hugely expensive. Each bridge costs hundreds of thousands.

    You need to either re-align the road passing over the bridge to a new alignment or close it for a period of months.

    Also, a bridge needing a clean is NOT a reason to replace it! :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    netwhizkid wrote: »
    Totally agree sponge, I am after an 8hrs drive from Fermanagh to Kerry that consisted of: Enniskillen > Cavan > Granard > Athlone > Ferbane > Borrisokane > Nenagh > Limerick > Abbeyfeale > CastleIsland > Killarney, my average speed was between 45 to 48mph and I had to take a one hour break mid point in Co. Longford as it was just so wrecking. Quite alot of the journey was Regional roads and National Secondary roads most of which have okayish surfaces but are diabolically twisty meaning any soft of speed is impossible.

    In fairness you took a bad route there. If you came to Kerry via Sligo(N16) it would have made an easier drive. The N17/N18/N21 while poor is superior to the twisty national secondary routes through the midlands.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,558 ✭✭✭netwhizkid


    tech2 wrote: »
    In fairness you took a bad route there. If you came to Kerry via Sligo(N16) it would have made an easier drive. The N17/N18/N21 while poor is superior to the twisty national secondary routes through the midlands.

    Completely agree but have relations in Longford so part of the journey involved an hour stop there (which wasn't included in the timing). Add to it the misery of driving an older van which struggles to over 60mph and it was like travelling by steam train.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,020 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Zoney wrote: »
    murphaph:

    The interurbans to Dublin were supposed to have been finished by 2006 - that was what was repeatedly promised until it was too obvious to voters that that wasn't going to happen.

    This could have been done if they had allowed foreign companies to build large sections of the motorways, instead of doing things in dribs and drabs at the beginning while waiting for Irish companies to gear up (and have unsustainable local numbers in construction).

    By finishing the interurbans by 2006 we could have had N11, M18, M17, M20 nearing completion now.

    And quite frankly yes I do think things would have been different had someone else been in power. We were only set up for the dot-com era due to the policies of the mid 90s which wasn't FF's doing, and maybe someone else would have tried a similar re-orientating of our economy in the early 2000s once dot-com burst instead of deliberately fostering a property boom.
    I agree with all that, it is still the case that the routes to Dublin were the priorities for the regions. The way it's spun on here it sounds as though it was Dublin's choice to connect itself with the regions when it was actually the other way around.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    MYOB wrote: »
    You are confusing "laziness" with "sense" here. Replacing overbridges is amazingly disruptive and hugely, hugely expensive. Each bridge costs hundreds of thousands.

    You need to either re-align the road passing over the bridge to a new alignment or close it for a period of months.

    Also, a bridge needing a clean is NOT a reason to replace it! :rolleyes:

    They recently knocked a few bridges on the M2 near belfast for widening. Hey they didn't do it the lazy way. And 65,000 vehicles passed under this bridge reconstruction!

    Shocking really.

    The bridges need more than a clean. They are rusting and old. The median has no room because of the extra support barriers to make sure the pillars don't get hit.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    I'm in favour of a N52ish ORR hybridization plan instead of widening all the motorways near Dublin.


    The only one that needs urgent widening is the M7/M9 to Naas atm.


    The first phase of ORR should replace the N51 from Navan to Drogheda.


    Phase 2 should be upgrading Delvin to Mullingar to 2+2(worst stretch of N52) For Dundalk and Northern travellers should then use the a new N52 bypass of Ardee and join the N33.


    Phase 3 Tuallmore to Birr HQDC.

    Birr (N52-N62, combination of upgrades and 2+2.

    Phase 4 would be linking the M9 to N52/M3 corridor eventually.

    Oh and Roscrea and Thurles bypasses. I think this is better balanced infrastructure as it feeds more central Ireland rather than creating another M50 near Dublin.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,746 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    mysterious wrote: »
    They recently knocked a few bridges on the M2 near belfast for widening. Hey they didn't do it the lazy way. And 65,000 vehicles passed under this bridge reconstruction!

    Shocking really.

    The bridges need more than a clean. They are rusting and old. The median has no room because of the extra support barriers to make sure the pillars don't get hit.

    Those bridges were 25 years older and too narrow to take even D3 with no H/S under them. There were also acceptable alternative routes around them. There is no acceptable alternative route around any of the bridges on the Naas BP other than the one that isn't in use at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭nordydan


    mysterious wrote: »
    Phase 3 Tuallmore to Birr HQDC.

    So you want what is effectively motorway from Tullamore to Birr?? :D


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


    Not from Mullingar to Tullamore and none of your poncy 2+2 neither like mysterious said :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    MYOB wrote: »
    Those bridges were 25 years older and too narrow to take even D3 with no H/S under them. There were also acceptable alternative routes around them. There is no acceptable alternative route around any of the bridges on the Naas BP other than the one that isn't in use at all.

    You seem to come up with some desparate attempts to sway to your argument.


    No you see, they wanted to build a proper D3 with HS, it's something they have been doing in other countries. It's better to do it now and future proff the motorway sections rather than leaving everything to the last minute and under spec like you love it to be.

    Where are you getting your notions there is no room around the bridges on the Naas bypass. Thats just a ludricous comment. A bridge can easily be built adjacent to it. They have done that on dozens of bridges on the M1 England. The Naas bypass has wide verges. The verges cannot be used because the existing bridge coluums are very thick and are right up to the carriegway. o when the M7 is widened here, it would be nonsensical and illogical to keep these bridges.

    I know, they replace other bridges in other countries, kinda shocking really.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    nordydan wrote: »
    So you want what is effectively motorway from Tullamore to Birr?? :D


    Well I would actually like to see a standard DC built here, a little bit higher grade than the 2+2. Reason being I would want the N52/N62 corridor here to be the focus of radial and interurban traffic that crosses up and down the country. From Birr to Nenagh(Limerick) and Birr to Thurles(Cork) Would be 2+2 standard.

    Well the N52 multiplexes with the N6, N62, N51 from Birr to past Mullingar. The long term plan is already to DC Tullamore To Mullingar. The reason a lot of traffic don't use this road, because the standard of the road is atrocious. At least 2,000 cars a day avoid the N52 and go the longer way via Dublin up North than using the N52. It's a deathtrap for H.G.Vs

    I think it's a valid point here, to move the Dublin focus. For example People from Kerry and Limerick use the M50 in Dublin to go to Belfast. It's motorway alright, but all this traffic doesn't need to be steering towards Dublin at all. It's one of the reasons why the M50 has so much traffic on it. All the countries roads feeds it. It's a planning disaster.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,746 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    mysterious wrote: »
    You seem to come up with some desparate attempts to sway to your argument.

    You're the one trying to justify spending hundreds of thousands needlessly. There's only desperation from one person here
    mysterious wrote: »
    No you see, they wanted to build a proper D3 with HS, it's something they have been doing in other countries. It's better to do it now and future proff the motorway sections rather than leaving everything to the last minute and under spec like you love it to be.

    This is the NIRS you're speaking about - the barely understand what a hard shoulder IS, let alone any desire to build "proper" ones. They have motorways with no "proper" HS *AT ALL* as well as ones with no median barrier.

    They replaced the bridges because they absolutely had to, that is all. As it is they've left an overbridge in place which needs a height restriction warning on the inner lanes!

    And, oh, guess what - they left a bridge with no H/S under it also. I suspect you've never actually driven this section of road...
    mysterious wrote: »
    Where are you getting your notions there is no room around the bridges on the Naas bypass. Thats just a ludricous comment. A bridge can easily be built adjacent to it. They have done that on dozens of bridges on the M1 England. The Naas bypass has wide verges. The verges cannot be used because the existing bridge coluums are very thick and are right up to the carriegway. o when the M7 is widened here, it would be nonsensical and illogical to keep these bridges.

    The same place you get your notions that theres not enough space to put three lanes under them... its "nonsensical and illogical" to keep structurally sound bridges wide enough to carry three lanes just so that one road geek can obsess about continuous hard shoulders.
    mysterious wrote: »
    I know, they replace other bridges in other countries, kinda shocking really.

    They also use discontinuous H/S in other countries, yet you cry any time its suggested here. Either compare our road network to other countries consistently or not at all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    MYOB wrote: »
    You're the one trying to justify spending hundreds of thousands needlessly. There's only desperation from one person here



    This is the NIRS you're speaking about - the barely understand what a hard shoulder IS, let alone any desire to build "proper" ones. They have motorways with no "proper" HS *AT ALL* as well as ones with no median barrier.

    They replaced the bridges because they absolutely had to, that is all. As it is they've left an overbridge in place which needs a height restriction warning on the inner lanes!

    And, oh, guess what - they left a bridge with no H/S under it also. I suspect you've never actually driven this section of road...



    The same place you get your notions that theres not enough space to put three lanes under them... its "nonsensical and illogical" to keep structurally sound bridges wide enough to carry three lanes just so that one road geek can obsess about continuous hard shoulders.



    They also use discontinuous H/S in other countries, yet you cry any time its suggested here. Either compare our road network to other countries consistently or not at all.

    I know you want every motorway in the country narrow with no HS. I would even say. You think it's wise to keep old bridges and try squeeze a D4 lane into a D2 road bridge....:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,746 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    mysterious wrote: »
    I know you want every motorway in the country narrow with no HS. I would even say. You think it's wise to keep old bridges and try squeeze a D4 lane into a D2 road bridge....:rolleyes:

    Erm. No.

    I want us to not waste stupid amounts of money doing things which are completely unnecessary. You on the other hand whimper at the slightest suggestion of a discontinuous H/S, as shown here and on the Nenagh Bypass threads.

    Actually, you seem to have a habit of trying to personalise your desires in to being the opposite other peoples. You desperately want to keep your green line on your map around Athlone so you claim everyone else only wants redesignation to make it blue. You desperately want continuous H/S under bridges so now you're claiming I don't want them at all - anywhere. You might want to get help...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    You said:D

    MYOB wrote: »
    This is the NIRS you're speaking about - the barely understand what a hard shoulder IS, let alone any desire to build "proper" ones. They have motorways with no "proper" HS *AT ALL* as well as ones with no median barrier.


    m2atbellevue.jpg

    That is the M2 btw. :)

    They replaced the bridges because they absolutely had to, that is all. As it is they've left an overbridge in place which needs a height restriction warning on the inner lanes!

    Like any other road, they don't do things the lazy. They built a bridge for teh right requirement of a D3M road. Simple as.

    And, oh, guess what - they left a bridge with no H/S under it also. I suspect you've never actually driven this section of road...

    I have, can you post me the bridge. :)





    [/quote]
    They also use discontinuous H/S in other countries, yet you cry any time its suggested here. Either compare our road network to other countries consistently or not at all.[/quote]

    And many are been replaced. It would be a lot of manpower to replace every motorway bridge in other countries when most of thier motorways were built post world war periods.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    MYOB wrote: »
    Erm. No.

    I want us to not waste stupid amounts of money doing things which are completely unnecessary. You on the other hand whimper at the slightest suggestion of a discontinuous H/S, as shown here and on the Nenagh Bypass threads.


    So, ok.

    Leave them as it is, and make sure we keep it as low spec. If our bridges are all under spec and every one of the bridges should have no HS and no future for extra lanes, I fail to see your logic at all in "cost saving and benifets" I mean even if it's pointless saving the Naas road bridges. We will keep them anyway no matter what. I personally do not see the logic in saving the old Naas road bridges for the sake of saving them. 65,000 vehicles a day use it. and The bridges will have to go eventually they are not up to the design spec of todays demands.

    Lets not future proof of course.

    Ah sure it's grand no?


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,746 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    mysterious wrote: »

    m2atbellevue.jpg

    That is the M2 btw. :)




    Like any other road, they don't do things the lazy. They built a bridge for teh right requirement of a D3M road. Simple as.




    I have, can you post me the bridge. :)

    That is the M2 pre upgrade. The bridge with no HS is the BRIDGE THAT SODDING PHOTO WAS TAKEN FROM! Bellvue.

    Clearly you actually *haven't* driven the road since its upgrade if you think that photo is representitive of it.

    Additionally, that is just one part of the M2. It is another part of the M2 that has no proper H/S at all and no median - the Ballymena BP.
    mysterious wrote: »
    And many are been replaced. It would be a lot of manpower to replace every motorway bridge in other countries when most of thier motorways were built post world war periods.

    They're being replaced when they need to be - and the Naas BP ones don't need to be.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,746 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    mysterious wrote: »
    So, ok.

    Leave them as it is, and make sure we keep it as low spec. If our bridges are all under spec and every one of the bridges should have no HS and no future for extra lanes, I fail to see your logic at all in "cost saving and benifets" I mean even if it's pointless saving the Naas road bridges. We will keep them anyway no matter what. I personally do not see the logic in saving the old Naas road bridges for the sake of saving them. 65,000 vehicles a day use it. and The bridges will have to go eventually they are not up to the design spec of todays demands.

    Lets not future proof of course.

    Ah sure it's grand no?

    Its keeping them for the sake of hundreds of thousands of euro and mass disruption, not the "sake of saving them". I know you have some ideas about cash that are not with this world, but the rest of us here actually live in reality, where there isn't the money to waste "future proofing" bridges beyond what the road itself is future proofed for. The roadway cannot carry D4M, it can only take D3M. So can the bridges.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,907 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    I don't know how busy the N4 is, but the major destinations along it are all served by train and the interconnector/Dart upgrade project would result in a massively improved rail service along this route. I'd much rather see this progressed than adding more and more lanes to the motorways around Dublin.


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


    Was on the M1 this morning and the M1 South to M50 South connector (Turnapin) was open alright, but the traffic at Lissenhall was horrendous - both the M1 South and R132 South were bumper to bumper - both leading into and coming out of the interchange that is – yes, 4 solid lanes of traffic inbound. The Malahide Viaduct re-opening seems to have made no difference at all. That said, once past the Estuary Roundabout, there's no real traffic problems on the R132 - Fingal CC has plans for a Southbound bus lane (a reconstructed hard shoulder on the R132) from the Tesco Roundabout (South of Blakes Cross) to the Estuary Roundabout - here's the link:

    http://www.fingalcoco.ie/Roads/QualityBusCorridorsQBCs/ProposedBusQBCNthofSwords/

    Also, a third lane on the M1 from Lissenhall is badly needed. However, we need that R132 bus lane now!

    Regards!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 12,747 Mod ✭✭✭✭JupiterKid


    MYOB wrote: »
    That is the M2 pre upgrade. The bridge with no HS is the BRIDGE THAT SODDING PHOTO WAS TAKEN FROM! Bellvue.

    Clearly you actually *haven't* driven the road since its upgrade if you think that photo is representitive of it.

    Additionally, that is just one part of the M2. It is another part of the M2 that has no proper H/S at all and no median - the Ballymena BP.

    They're being replaced when they need to be - and the Naas BP ones don't need to be.

    What are you talking about?:confused: Of course the M2 Ballymena bypass has a median - it just doesn't yet have a median barrier. And it will probably get a barrier when the Larne Road interchange project is finished. IMO the M2 hill section upgrade to D3M was perfectly adequate. The need now is to build a freeflow to the A8(M) at Sandyknowes.


    IMO between now and 2014 there will be a need to widen the M1 from the Airport interchange to Balbriggan South to D3M and the Naas/Newbridge Bypass from Mauldlins to the M9 junction to D3M. They will have to replace the bridges on the Naas Bypass. But there are much more pressing priorities in terms of road projects. Like replacing the atrocious section of the N17 north of Tuam that claimed the lives of four young women last night.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,746 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    JupiterKid wrote: »
    What are you talking about?:confused: Of course the M2 Ballymena bypass has a median - it just doesn't yet have a median barrier. And it will probably get a barrier when the Larne Road interchange project is finished. IMO the M2 hill section upgrade to D3M was perfectly adequate. The need now is to build a freeflow to the A8(M) at Sandyknowes.

    Median, median barrier, much the same thing when dealing with mysterious.


Advertisement