M50 thread

ACE_FGT

There was a crash at the N7 to M50 lane split this morning, an articulated lorry and a car. it was always only a matter of time....NRA still have done nothing to improve the mess they created.

Quickelles

ACE_FGT wrote: »

There was a crash at the N7 to M50 lane split this morning, an articulated lorry and a car. it was always only a matter of time....NRA still have done nothing to improve the mess they created.

There is no money or space available to solve this by engineering. :mad:

What is needed is a 50 kph limit past Newlands Cross enforced with Extreme Prejudice. :cool:

Chris_5339762

Yes there is, left lane M50N only, middle lane M50S only, right lane City which then splits to two lanes further on in.

No engineering, just some line painting.

Aquarius34

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Yes there is, left lane M50N only, middle lane M50S only, right lane City which then splits to two lanes further on in.

No engineering, just some line painting.

The Redcow has been an accident blackspot ever since it was upgraded as part of the M50 works.

tonc76

Aquarius34 wrote: »

The Redcow has been an accident blackspot ever since it was upgraded as part of the M50 works.

I've been looking at the RSA's road collision map for the N7/M50 interchange. Since 2008 the recorded collisions are: Fatal 1, Serious 0 & Minor 15. I believe that for the busiest junction in the country these figures do not back up your "black spot" statement.

Care to elaborate?

Aquarius34

tonc76 wrote: »

I've been looking at the RSA's road collision map for the N7/M50 interchange. Since 2008 the recorded collisions are: Fatal 1, Serious 0 & Minor 15. I believe that for the busiest junction in the country these figures do not back up your "black spot" statement.

Care to elaborate?

People don't have to die or have crashes daily, in order for it to a trouble spot. Hasn't a truck literally nearly glided off one of the bridges at one time leaving it dangling over the edge. It's a dangerous interchange and the reason why there isn't a huge number of crashes is probably down to the fact the most traffic go very slow on this junctions at all approaches. The Luas P+R exit is incredibly dangerous given the the M50 to N7 outbound merges very close to it. That configuration should of never went ahead like that.

I am surprised there hasn't many pile ups yet. But I can see where you're going wth this. We shall wait till we get a huge pile up or many fatalities on this junction in order for it to be fixed. It's the way to go hey.

Aquarius34

tonc76 wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

Don't we all love to elaborate and get away from the point don't we. It's how it is in Ireland.

listermint

Aquarius34 wrote: »

People don't have to die or have crashes daily, in order for it to a trouble spot. Hasn't a truck literally nearly glided off one of the bridges at one time leaving it dangling over the edge. It's a dangerous interchange and the reason why there isn't a huge number of crashes is probably down to the fact the most traffic go very slow on this junctions at all approaches. The Luas P+R exit is incredibly dangerous given the the M50 to N7 outbound merges very close to it. That configuration should of never went ahead like that.

I am surprised there hasn't many pile ups yet. But I can see where you're going wth this. We shall wait till we get a huge pile up or many fatalities on this junction in order for it to be fixed. It's the way to go hey.

SO the stats dont back up anything you are saying then....



riiiigght....

Aquarius34

listermint wrote: »

SO the stats dont back up anything you are saying then....



riiiigght....

Are you taking the piss? What are you saying then, this is a safe junction?. There has been a truck overturned again just two months ago. There has been crashes on this junction. Just because many people haven't died on this junction doesn't mean that this road junction is up to "a safe standard" This junction is relatively new don't forget.

listermint

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Are you taking the piss? What are you saying then, this is a safe junction?. There has been a truck overturned again just two months ago. There has been countless crashes on this junction. Just because many people haven't died on this junction doesn't mean that this road junction is up to "a safe standard" This junction is relatively new don't forget.

New since when ? This upgrade occured in 2007. Thats new is it ?


The junction is entirely safe and the stats back it up. Your willy nilly scaremongering with zero facts isnt going to make you correct in fact it shows your complete lack of knowledge on the matter.

Aquarius34

listermint wrote: »

New since when ? This upgrade occured in 2007. Thats new is it ?


The junction is entirely safe and the stats back it up. Your willy nilly scaremongering with zero facts isnt going to make you correct in fact it shows your complete lack of knowledge on the matter.

lol.

tonc76

Aquarius34 wrote: »

People don't have to die or have crashes daily, in order for it to a trouble spot. Hasn't a truck literally nearly glided off one of the bridges at one time leaving it dangling over the edge. It's a dangerous interchange and the reason why there isn't a huge number of crashes is probably down to the fact the most traffic go very slow on this junctions at all approaches. The Luas P+R exit is incredibly dangerous given the the M50 to N7 outbound merges very close to it. That configuration should of never went ahead like that.

I am surprised there hasn't many pile ups yet. But I can see where you're going wth this. We shall wait till we get a huge pile up or many fatalities on this junction in order for it to be fixed. It's the way to go hey.

You've mentioned black spot and trouble spot with one reference to a truck that "literally nearly glided off one of the bridges". I have no indication of why this collision occured but if it was down to the driver travelling faster than the posted speed limit is this interchange still a "black spot or trouble spot"?

Aquarius34

listermint wrote: »

New since when ? This upgrade occured in 2007. Thats new is it ?


The junction is entirely safe and the stats back it up. Your willy nilly scaremongering with zero facts isnt going to make you correct in fact it shows your complete lack of knowledge on the matter.

This section of road opened, December 2008. It's a relatively new road by my standards. Which is just over 4 years ago.

Aquarius34

tonc76 wrote: »

You've mentioned black spot and trouble spot with one reference to a truck that "literally nearly glided off one of the bridges". I have no indication of why this collision occured but if it was down to the driver travelling faster than the posted speed limit is this interchange still a "black spot or trouble spot"?

Trucks have overturned on this junction a few times. It is a dangerous junction, with steep curves, high inclines, tight junctions with dangerous weaving movements, Funny how you automatically blame the truck driver.:rolleyes:

tonc76

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Trucks have overturned on this junction a few times. It is a dangerous junction, with steep curves, high inclines, tight junctions with dangerous weaving movements, Funny how you automatically blame the truck driver.:rolleyes:

Don't remember other trucks overturning? Any links to reports?

Steep curve = slower traffic speed
high incline = slower traffic speed

I believe the only dangerous weaving movement is between Ballymount > M50 & M50 > N7 which is a function of the proximity of the juctions. Dangerous all the same but a singular instance.

Aquarius34

tonc76 wrote: »

Don't remember other trucks overturning? Any links to reports?

Steep curve = slower traffic speed
high incline = slower traffic speed

I believe the only dangerous weaving movement is between Ballymount > M50 & M50 > N7 which is a function of the proximity of the juctions. Dangerous all the same but a singular instance.

Ah I love your ignorance to the obvious. You forgot the Luas P+R junction which I already mentioned earlier, your action of putting the wool over your eyes is sure to be noted at this point. The junction is still a mess by modern standards. The Turnpike and Luas P+R junctions is a joke. The steep inclines are very steep. Take the M50 to Naas SB slip. The slip goes up and down like a rollarcoaster for it's entire length.

Why don't you look up the statistics. There has been a truck overturned again at this site 2 months ago of this year. Check RTE reports. Or heck why don't you email NRA. I am sure you love the NRA.

listermint

Aquarius34 wrote: »

This section of road opened, December 2008. It's a relatively new road by my standards. Which is just over 4 years ago.

so 4years old. Hundreds of thousands of vehicles pass over it . Thousands every hour and youve pointed to 1 truck incident and you dont even have the report of this particular incident to back up your claims on the design of the junction.

It would appear there is not point in debating with you. Your superior hearsay lols and roles eyes win through everytime.

listermint

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Ah I love your ignorance to the obvious. You forgot the Luas P+R junction which I already mentioned earlier, your action of putting the wool over your eyes is sure to be noted at this point. The junction is still a mess by modern standards.

Far from it, It was designed to meet modern standards.

What do you want Roundabouts and traffic lights.


Do you understand what you are taking about? Honest question.

Aquarius34

listermint wrote: »

Far from it, It was designed to meet modern standards.

What do you want Roundabouts and traffic lights.


Do you understand what you are taking about? Honest question.

According to the NRA I guess or you. Do ou speak for the NRA.

If you think placing and off and on ramp slip road 50 metres before another merging slip as up to road standards design spec, then I'd love to know what road design stanrards you follow.

Aquarius34

listermint wrote: »

so 4years old. Hundreds of thousands of vehicles pass over it . Thousands every hour and youve pointed to 1 truck incident and you dont even have the report of this particular incident to back up your claims on the design of the junction.

It would appear there is not point in debating with you. Your superior hearsay lols and roles eyes win through everytime.

Don't think there was ever much point in debating with you in the first place.

listermint

Aquarius34 wrote: »

According to the NRA I guess or you. Do ou speak for the NRA.

If you think placing and off and on ramp slip road 50 metres before another merging slip as up to road standards design spec, then I'd love to know what road design stanrards you follow.

Im glad we have someone here so knowledgeable on the subject. Did you get your ruler out for the measurements or did you find them on the back of a beer mat.


You can give us all a detailed report of what qualifies an accident black spot. And where in the junctions design it qualifies for this. Also how you would go about rectifying all of these obvious design flaws.

tonc76

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Ah I love your ignorance to the obvious. You forgot the Luas P+R junction which I already mentioned earlier, your action of putting the wool over your eyes is sure to be noted at this point. The junction is still a mess by modern standards. The Turnpike and Luas P+R junctions is a joke. The steep inclines are very steep. Take the M50 to Naas SB slip. The slip goes up and down like a rollarcoaster for it's entire length.

Why don't you look up the statistics. There has been a truck overturned again at this site 2 months ago of this year. Check RTE reports. Or heck why don't you email NRA. I am sure you love the NRA.

Luas P & R admittedly I missed.

I already provided stats from the RSA's collision database to back up my statements. You on the other hand have made statements with no back up whatsoever so if anyone needs to back up their statements its you butty.

Just because a "steep incline is very steep" doesn't make it dangerous. The M50 > N7 passes under the R110 eastbound and then crosses over the M50 before joining the N7 westbound. How else could this be achieved without steep gradients?

Aquarius34

tonc76 wrote: »

Luas P & R admittedly I missed.

I already provided stats from the RSA's collision database to back up my statements. You on the other hand have made statements with no back up whatsoever so if anyone needs to back up their statements its you butty.

Just because a "steep incline is very steep" doesn't make it dangerous. The M50 > N7 passes under the R110 eastbound and then crosses over the M50 before joining the N7 westbound. How else could this be achieved without steep gradients?

There is and was far better ways of routing that alignment in particular. The M50 to Naas sb slip should of went over the Nass city bound lanes not under it for starters.. Having steep inclines is one aspect, but it goes up and down many times like a rollercoaster. On top of that all 4 lanes merge onto another slip and an at grade junction.

The interchange could of been designed far better and they had the opportunity at the time to do so when they were redesigning it. The Turnpike and the Luas P+R was one of the blunders that was mentioned and of course it was ignored. It's actually quite easy to have made this interchange far better than it's current layout. Some aspects and alignements of the interchange are impressive. The Naas to M50 and city bounc arragment is the only impressive layout on this interchange.

This isn't a debate or an argument to me. You either are facing up to the blunder of this or you don't. You either accept that accidents are going to happen in the future or you are just going to sit there and deny this to be the case. That is your own choice, but you cannot overide the truth just for personal conjecture.

I'll ask again, do you work for the NRA, I am very curious as to why you're been so defensive

Quickelles

Are not suggestions/allegations that someone "works for the NRA" a tad ad hominal? :eek:

I agree that given the extreme space limitation any solution would attract fire from hurlers-on-the-ditch.

Aquarius34

Quickelles wrote: »

Are not suggestions/allegations that someone "works for the NRA" a tad ad hominal? :eek:

I agree that given the extreme space limitation any solution would attract fire from hurlers-on-the-ditch.

There isn't space limitation, there is and was enough land provided to build a proper interchange to what would be sufficient enough to build a standard all free flowing interchange. It was a missed opportunity. The only reason they went back to the drawing boards the last time was because the people were not happy about the NRA's old red cow interchange plans. So there we go again, hey. The NRA have consistently been terrible at managing our road infrastructure.

The tight arrangements on some approaches at the Red Cow was all down to bad planning and reckless over building on developments all around the M50. The government wanted to make a few bob on selling land to developers. What's new. Who's the blame for this? Our corrupt government and the NRA yet again. The large sum and money used to rebuild the M50 is all down the errors of the past in which they themselves HAD created. You see where I am going with this? The mess just becomes more obvious when I seem to make the realisation be known.

The problem here in Ireland is we have a lack of foreign road engineers. We have people running our country that honestly don't give a damn about this land. Infact they have done possibly everything to destroy it. The NRA are a joke. They can't even design proper signage here and I'd rather not keep going with this because it won't stop at this rate.

I'd say you are largely unfamiliar with road junctions outside of Ireland. You should see how other countries can build free flowing junctions in even tighter arrangements. Ireland is a relatively flat terrain country with easy soil to work with. We just don't build good roads or plan well.. There is plenty of room to build stacks and complex on-ramps if it's required at this location. It was required but it was built on the cheap so our government could take the leftover and keep to themselves. Corrupt......

Aquarius34

It took us 30 years to build the M50 and it's still a mess. Almost 20 km of motorway and 30 years to finish it. Give me paitence please...... We allegedly spent over a billion 5 years ago to upgrade it and that billion wouldn't of have been wasted if we had proper engineers and road planners in the first place.. I still cannot understand how these muppets get away with the mess they have created and even sit here dare to defend themselves after all these years of blatant reckless planning, spending and corruption.. Ireland didn't get the title of been the most corrupt country in Europe for nothing......

Geogregor

Wow, what a rant. Do you have some personal issues with the NRA?

Dublin is not LA or Houston. Do you seriously think that 5-levels stack would be solution there??

listermint

Aquarius34 wrote: »

It took us 30 years to build the M50 and it's still a mess. Almost 20 km of motorway and 30 years to finish it. Give me paitence please...... We allegedly spent over a billion 5 years ago to upgrade it and that billion wouldn't of have been wasted if we had proper engineers and road planners in the first place.. I still cannot understand how these muppets get away with the mess they have created and even sit here dare to defend themselves after all these years of blatant reckless planning, spending and corruption.. Ireland didn't get the title of been the most corrupt country in Europe for nothing......

There is literally nothing you have posted so far that isnt based on your own thoughts and conjecture.

Nothing. You have no stats, no studies nothing up any of your claims. Yet you sit their accusing other posters of conjecture.

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word and the quiz yourself on your frankly hilarious rant. " the government wanted to hand money to developers around this junction" Get a grip.

I suggest you have no experience with junctions globally. In the US the highways were built in the 60s and 70s on vast open planes which is why the have long winding meandering curves. The fact that you have suggest this sort of interchange would work in this location displays your clear lack of understanding of the facts.

Back to the drawing board mate.

tonc76

Aquarius34 wrote: »

There is and was far better ways of routing that alignment in particular. The M50 to Naas sb slip should of went over the Nass city bound lanes not under it for starters.. Having steep inclines is one aspect, but it goes up and down many times like a rollercoaster. On top of that all 4 lanes merge onto another slip and an at grade junction.

The interchange could of been designed far better and they had the opportunity at the time to do so when they were redesigning it. The Turnpike and the Luas P+R was one of the blunders that was mentioned and of course it was ignored. It's actually quite easy to have made this interchange far better than it's current layout. Some aspects and alignements of the interchange are impressive. The Naas to M50 and city bounc arragment is the only impressive layout on this interchange.

This isn't a debate or an argument to me. You either are facing up to the blunder of this or you don't. You either accept that accidents are going to happen in the future or you are just going to sit there and deny this to be the case. That is your own choice, but you cannot overide the truth just for personal conjecture.

I'll ask again, do you work for the NRA, I am very curious as to why you're been so defensive

Accidents are going to happen on every road no matter how good the design is as most are accidents are down to driver error.


I don't work for the NRA. I supplied statistics to show that the interchange is not an accident black spot. You have mentioned some accidents involving trucks yet have not backed up your black spot statement with anything other than opinion.

Aquarius34

listermint wrote: »

There is literally nothing you have posted so far that isnt based on your own thoughts and conjecture.

Nothing. You have no stats, no studies nothing up any of your claims. Yet you sit their accusing other posters of conjecture.

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word and the quiz yourself on your frankly hilarious rant. " the government wanted to hand money to developers around this junction" Get a grip.

I suggest you have no experience with junctions globally. In the US the highways were built in the 60s and 70s on vast open planes which is why the have long winding meandering curves. The fact that you have suggest this sort of interchange would work in this location displays your clear lack of understanding of the facts.

Back to the drawing board mate.

You project all the traits and misjudgments you accuse of me that you show in yourself. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. You're just here to focus on me. Which is kinda funny to me.