Were Our Motorways Jerry Built?

JupiterKid

We are all aware of how badly built much of the housing that was thrown up during the property bubble years was. Complaints of subsidence, leaks, draughts, excessive noise, the iron pyrite disaster, lack of fire safety standards and other numerous problems for homeowners have been well documented in the media.

Looking at the recent threads here on problems with our spanking new motorways, like the need to close the M6 between Athlone and Ballinasloe for repairs, "dips" appearing on the M9 and M8, subsidence of some embankments and the poor surface of the M4 between Enfield and Kinnegad, can we speculate that much of our recent motorways were poorly built?

Who know what's to come a few years down the line given the emerging problems with these roads only a couple of years after their completion? Were engineering/ground testing standards too lax or remiss? Were the motorways built too quickly and issues with respect to construction standards overlooked?

Could we be looking at serious problems with our motorways in years to come?:(:mad:

Irish and Proud

JupiterKid wrote: »

We are all aware of how badly built much of the housing that was thrown up during the property bubble years was. Complaints of subsidence, leaks, draughts, excessive noise, the iron pyrite disaster, lack of fire safety standards and other numerous problems for homeowners have been well documented in the media.

Looking at the recent threads here on problems with our spanking new motorways, like the need to close the M6 between Athlone and Ballinsaloe for repairs, "dips" appearing on the M9 and M8, subsidence of some embankments and the very poor surface of the M4 beteen Enfield and Kinnegad, can we speculate that much of our recent motorways were poorly built?

Who know what's to come a few years down the line given the emerging problems with these roads only a couple of years after their completion? Were engineering/ground testing standards too lax or remiss? Were the motorways built too quickly and issues with respect to construction standards overlooked?

Could we be looking at serious problems with our motorways in years to come?:(:mad:

Well time will tell - In the past, I've seen serious defects in new motorways in England and France, and more recently Spain. In the 1990's, I remember seeing very serious subsidence at one point on the M42 near Birmingham and subsidence on a couple of river bridge structures on the M40 towards London. I also saw a couple of potholes on a then new motorway in Normandy, France. More recently, I spoke of the excellent quality of the Section of AP-7 between Catagena and Mazarron in Spain - what I didn't mention was the next section of AP-7 towards Almeria which seemed to be suffering bad subsidence around many underbridges in 2009 - the ride quality was quite poor - unlike the odd bump in Ireland or the AP-7 from Cartagena to Mazarron. I seriously hope our motorways don't turn out like many of our apartment buildings. However, I believe the road building industry in Ireland is quite heavily regulated as far as building control is concerned. I seriously hope I'm right!

Regards!

Alun

I agree, this isn't just an 'Irish thing'. I remember a newly opened stretch of motorway in the Netherlands that had to be completely ripped up and virtually started from scratch because the road surface sagged between the drainage pipes that ran perpendicular to the traffic direction. It was quite literally like driving along a roller coaster.

Blitzkrieger

I'm guessing yes. Surfacing seems to be getting poorer year by year. I was amazed with the surface on the East Cork Parkway when it opened - I couldn't believe how smooth it was. In contrast when the Ballincollig Bypass opened I couldn't believe how poor it was. The funny thing is most people were saying it was great - try driving it in a stiff-suspensioned sports car or a motorbike. Then when the M8 north of Templemore was opened I thought they were taking the piss altogether. When the surface is that poor, you know there's going to be problems in the future.

Hoof Hearted

A 50% reduction in roadway roughness increases in performance life of 55% according to page 10 in the following document http://www.rmaces.org/presentations/2011_RMACES/Session_5/smoothnessspecreq-covert.pdf So any road contracts that resulted in poor smoothness ends up costing us the tax payers substantially in the end. I know in the US most states put in smoothness incentive clauses in the contract where the contractor's final bonus or withholding is determined based on the value of the International Roughness Index (IRI) of the completed roadway. Not sure if the NRA does this and what the percentage incentive is. If a roadway lasts 40 years instead of 20 because of best practice in smoothness quality, the extra cost of the incentive to the taxpayer is worth it many times over. Not sure if many of these contractors are able to cough up the cost of warranty claims should it become necessary if severe deterioration occurs. One problem with using the IRI is that the contractor can make the road smooth where this can be performed easily and then make a terrible job of the roadway at the bridge interfaces, and as the IRI takes the overall value of many miles, a few feet of rough road doesn't affect the overall IRI much, but the bridge interface would be one of the most expensive elements to fix.

Wild Bill

JupiterKid wrote: »

Looking at the recent threads here on problems with our spanking new motorways, like the need to close the M6 between Athlone and Ballinasloe for repairs, "dips" appearing on the M9 and M8, subsidence of some embankments and the poor surface of the M4 between Enfield and Kinnegad, can we speculate that much of our recent motorways were poorly built?

You can indeed speculate - but I'd be thinking NO to this question. :cool:

Pete_Cavan

The issue may not be with build quality, the problem could be in the design. All the materials used to construct the road will have been subject to regular testing and all work carried out will have been approved by the RE staff on site. The road may have been built exactly as per the design but the design may not be sufficient to support the road.

Victor

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The issue may not be with build quality, the problem could be in the design. All the materials used to construct the road will have been subject to regular testing and all work carried out will have been approved by the RE staff on site. The road may have been built exactly as per the design but the design may not be sufficient to support the road.

Many of them were design and build contracts.

ardmacha

The quality of the roads in general isn't bad at all, there will always be a few ups and downs.

Our roads are not Jerry built, but are largely Jerry paid for!

Wild Bill

ardmacha wrote: »

The quality of the roads in general isn't bad at all, there will always be a few ups and downs.

Our roads are not Jerry built, but are largely Jerry paid for!

Not Jerry built or Jerry paid for. :mad:

JupiterKid

Bumping this thread as there seems to be a number of repairs/lane closures on our motorways over the past few weeks.

For starters:

M7 between Annacotty and Birdhill, M8 between Cahir and Mitchelstown and the M9 at Paulstown.

Surely such new motorways shouldn't have these sorts of problems?:(:confused:

irishguy

No need to worry about any of the toll roads any the toll operator will be required to resurface it before handing it back to the state at the end of the contract period.

Victor

JupiterKid wrote: »

Bumping this thread as there seems to be a number of repairs/lane closures on our motorways over the past few weeks.

For starters:

M7 between Annacotty and Birdhill, M8 between Cahir and Mitchelstown and the M9 at Paulstown.

Surely such new motorways shouldn't have these sorts of problems?:(:confused:

You can't build that much road and not have some problems. The contractors are likely to have to do it (for free) as part of their defects liability.

corktina

Wild Bill wrote: »

Not Jerry built or Jerry paid for. :mad:

more than likely Chinese paid for.... the Reign of the West is nigh

FGR

irishguy wrote: »

No need to worry about any of the toll roads any the toll operator will be required to resurface it before handing it back to the state at the end of the contract period.

Is this true?

L1011

FGR wrote: »

Is this true?

Its a standard clause in the older NRA contracts that are public. The newer ones are not public but its been indicated the clauses exist in them too.

PPP operators must maintain the surface to a reasonable standard, resurface (at least) once and return the road with a minimum expected resurface date of +10 years, from memory.

ardmacha

PPP operators must maintain the surface to a reasonable standard, resurface (at least) once and return the road with a minimum expected resurface date of +10 years, from memory.

I'd say some of these deals will be extended. E.g. private maintenance of the M1 extended from the border to Lisenhall for a 10 years extension of the franchise.

corktina

corktina wrote: »

more than likely Chinese paid for.... the Reign of the West is nigh

Don't you mean East

Irish and Proud

ardmacha wrote: »

I'd say some of these deals will be extended. E.g. private maintenance of the M1 extended from the border to Lisenhall for a 10 years extension of the franchise.

...and put a D3 upgrade to J7 Gormanston in the mix!

L1011

Irish and Proud wrote: »

...and put a D3 upgrade to J7 Gormanston in the mix!

Similar would make sense for a number of other PPP schemes - e.g. offer the M4 concessionaire (who are now about 1/3rd of the way through their contract I believe) an extension if they D3 from Lucan to the start of their scheme and maintain the lot.

ardmacha

Similar would make sense for a number of other PPP schemes - e.g. offer the M4 concessionaire (who are now about 1/3rd of the way through their contract I believe) an extension if they D3 from Lucan to the start of their scheme and maintain the lot.

A bit of moral hazard here, though. This would increase the tolls of people travelling nationally to improve commute times for Dublin commuters, who don't travel as a far as the toll gate. Perhaps the toll scheme could be recalibrated to include the improved sections?

L1011

ardmacha wrote: »

A bit of moral hazard here, though. This would increase the tolls of people travelling nationally to improve commute times for Dublin commuters, who don't travel as a far as the toll gate. Perhaps the toll scheme could be recalibrated to include the improved sections?

Seeing as the M1 scheme as formulated involved taking control of lots of extant motorway to ensure a decent length of scheme, there is precedent.

Victor

Why would they give anyone an extension without a tender?

L1011

Victor wrote: »

Why would they give anyone an extension without a tender?

I would imagine that nobody else would tender if what was on offer was, say, 10 years with a fair amount of expenditure. The startup costs would eat the potential profits.

Extensions without tender are done in the UK frequently - radio stations were given them for going on DAB and railway TOCs get them for various reasons also. And then ITVs franchises have been extended ad infinitum at this stage.

Victor

MYOB wrote: »

I would imagine that nobody else would tender if what was on offer was, say, 10 years with a fair amount of expenditure. The startup costs would eat the potential profits.

But it would be exactly the same cost and income that the incumbent would have, bar a little signage - start-up costs are negligible on operations that aren't start-ups.

Extensions without tender are done in the UK frequently - radio stations were given them for going on DAB and railway TOCs get them for various reasons also. And then ITVs franchises have been extended ad infinitum at this stage.

I don't know the exact ins and outs there, but there are likely to have been options built into the contracts.

L1011

Victor wrote: »

But it would be exactly the same cost and income that the incumbent would have, bar a little signage - start-up costs are negligible on operations that aren't start-ups.

Its not free to do the work required for a bid, form the company, get the required know-how to actually do the job, form relationships with suppliers and so on.

Victor wrote: »

I don't know the exact ins and outs there, but there are likely to have been options built into the contracts.

Likely was for the TOCs. However, for the broadcast ones, there wasn't.

DaveJac

The M7 between Annacotty and Birdhill sections of this were built on a bog alot of locals advised them not to bulid there it will sink but engineers think they know it all, a digger sunk there when they were building it, they should have taken the locals advise and either gone around the boggy patch or built the road over it properly floated it over the bog it can be done but properly too late at this stage they will just patch it up when it sinks

JupiterKid

I see that the M9 between Paulstown and Knocktopher is closed (again) for repairs.

This means that over the past year a number recently built motorways - the M1, M4, M8 and M9 coming to mind - have required closure to traffic for repairs and/or resurfacing.

This seems pretty unacceptable to me. Surely newly built motorways don't need to be closed for repairs so soon (and so often) after construction? And this is not the first time many of these roads have been closed for repairs eitther.

I suspect that such was the fast pace of the inter-urban motorway building programme that corners were cut and shoddy construction standards were permitted. I hope that this wasn't the case but with each motorway closure my suspicions increase.:mad::(

How many more problems are we yet to find out about our new motorways?

road_high

I think the M9 is closed between Mullinavat and Knocktopher at the moment?
Bu there are also major faults at Paulstown where one side lane has been closed since last Dec and still little sign of progress to repair it.

maddragon

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't you mean East

Depends how far west you go.

celticbest

JupiterKid wrote: »

This means that over the past year a number recently built motorways - the M1, M4, M8 and M9 coming to mind - have required closure to traffic for repairs and/or resurfacing.

Just wondering what sections of the M1 were closed over the last year, just I can't recall.

ardmacha

Just wondering what sections of the M1 were closed over the last year, just I can't recall.

The M1 was closed 3 days ago
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056741867

L1011

The sections of the M1 being resurfaced are closer to 15 years old than 'new' though.

MYOB

MYOB wrote: »

The sections of the M1 being resurfaced are closer to 15 years old than 'new' though.

Around 12 and not very heavily used. Almost sure it was the same stretch that had to be closed in the last 18 months for other repairs.

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

Around 12 and not very heavily used. Almost sure it was the same stretch that had to be closed in the last 18 months for other repairs.

It was - but they did a patch-job there. I don't know if they're patching or totally resurfacing this time.

It isn't the state paying for this, btw. That section of road is under a PPP contract, the toll operators at Drogheda are responsible for maintaining from the start of their toll section through to Dundalk.

ardmacha

Around 12 and not very heavily used. Almost sure it was the same stretch that had to be closed in the last 18 months for other repairs.

Even this part of the M1 is much more heavily used than the M8 or M9. However the problem here seems to be a poor wearing course, not subsidence of the road.

They are only patching, I imagine.

niloc1951

Heading North on the M8 over the weekend I noticed a good few patched section between Jct 12 and Jct 11, a section which is only a few years old.

There was also two electronic message boards plus multiple other signs indicating roadworks and reduced speed limit in the vicinity of Jct 11............but no indication that any such activity had or is taking place

Victor

niloc1951 wrote: »

Heading North on the M8 over the weekend I noticed a good few patched section between Jct 12 and Jct 11, a section which is only a few years old.

So? This work is likely being paid for by the contractor. If you spend €8bn on motorways, you are going to have to expect the occasional issue.

There was also two electronic message boards plus multiple other signs indicating roadworks and reduced speed limit in the vicinity of Jct 11............but no indication that any such activity had or is taking place

Work was being done on Monday 10 September - I think they had one lane closed. Presumably, they weren't working over the weekend.

niloc1951

Victor wrote: »

So? This work is likely being paid for by the contractor. If you spend €8bn on motorways, you are going to have to expect the occasional issue.


Work was being done on Monday 10 September - I think they had one lane closed. Presumably, they weren't working over the weekend.

Fair enough if the contractor is taking up the bill, but does this not point to the fact that a so called competent contractor did a substandard job first time round, jerry built !!!!!

If work had been taking place at an earlier time why were the signs not taken away when it was finished. I passed the location early afternoon on the 14th. and could see no indication of any roadworks except for a few abandoned cones in the grass beyond the emergency lane. It is little wonder that our road signage, particularly temporary signage has so little credibility.

Think of all the 'abandoned' oil spill ahead, road flooded ahead to name two of the most common and of course, the subject of this post the road works ahead and most important reduced speed limit signs a sign which above all needs its credibility protected, which are left in place long after their purpose has passed.

Iolaire

niloc1951 wrote: »

Think of all the 'abandoned' oil spill ahead, road flooded ahead to name two of the most common and of course, the subject of this post the road works ahead and most important reduced speed limit signs a sign which above all needs its credibility protected, which are left in place long after their purpose has passed.

Haha, yes. Dozens of them in Donegal in areas where road works finished over 4 years ago!

Victor

Iolaire wrote: »

Haha, yes. Dozens of them in Donegal in areas where road works finished over 4 years ago!

Have you made a complaint?

niloc1951

Victor wrote: »

Have you made a complaint?

Make a complaint :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Those responsible should earn their salaries and do a conscientious job.

The best example is the huge, probably 4or5 metres high advance notice for the JLT on the N25 which indicates the tunnel is 2.5km ahead but has remained untouched for over a decade planted between the 1,500m and 500m signes :P:P

L1011

The M1 patch job is very shoddily done and misses a lot of sections southbound that really needed doing. Compared to the previous patch job, which was properly done but missed a lot of sections, its a serious regression.

They need to bite the bullet and do the wearing course on the ENTIRE Dunleer Bypass. They're clearly holding out to only do it once during the contract (as required).

ardmacha

The M1 patch job is very shoddily done and misses a lot of sections southbound that really needed doing. Compared to the previous patch job, which was properly done but missed a lot of sections, its a serious regression.

+1

They need to bite the bullet and do the wearing course on the ENTIRE Dunleer Bypass. They're clearly holding out to only do it once during the contract

I think you mean Dunleer - Dundalk. The Dunleer bypass, although 7 years older, is in pretty good shape all in all. So it can be done properly, it just wasn't.

L1011

ardmacha wrote: »

I think you mean Dunleer - Dundalk. The Dunleer bypass, although 7 years older, is in pretty good shape all in all. So it can be done properly, it just wasn't.

Come to think of it, yes I did mean that.

The Maynooth BP, 1993/4 era opening (the opening date on the plaque is mid 1994 but I'm certain it was a delayed ceremony) has had only minor patching on one carriageway despite a far higher AADT than that section. Its very obvious something was fecked up.

ardmacha

Its very obvious something was fecked up.

Bill Clinton's armoured car driving on it before it settled, I reckon.