M4 - Maynooth to Leixlip [constr. of inbound bus lane underway;planning and design underway on rest]

marno21

Consultants to be appointed by May 2019 to progress the M4 between Maynooth and Leixlip through Phases 1-4 of TII's Project Management Guidelines

Project will include 10km of upgrade and capacity issues at the Maynooth junction (J7) will also be investigated

Preliminary costed at €100m. https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2019-03-07a.314

roadmaster

marno21 wrote: »

Consultants to be appointed by May 2019 to progress the M4 between Maynooth and Leixlip through Phases 1-4 of TII's Project Management Guidelines

Project will include 10km of upgrade and capacity issues at the Maynooth junction (J7) will also be investigated

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2019-03-07a.314

Preliminary costed at €100m.

That seams a little high in price i wonder is it because of the bridge widening on the liffey

the_syco

roadmaster wrote: »

That seams a little high in price i wonder is it because of the bridge widening on the liffey

I'm guessing it's 130 meters long. Could they just eliminate the hard shoulder on it?

The Maynooth off-ramp will hopefully be changed. That roundabout should either be eliminated, or the road should straighten, and have lights at the top.

Kermit.de.frog

How long before this mere 10 kms gets to construction if consultants appointed in May?

marno21

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

How long before this mere 10 kms gets to construction if consultants appointed in May?

It won't go to construction in the next few years at least.

It seems that with this and the other 22 schemes that are at this stage, they will all be advanced through planning and will have to fight it out for what's left in the pot after the €5.7bn + M20 funding that's allocated until 2027 and will be spent firstly on the 23 schemes that are further on in the planning process. Obviously, this is the current status and won't apply if the current ruling junta are ousted in the meantime.

L1011

They have withheld resurfacing for nearly a decade due to this plan - everyone within a km of the motorway should welcome this as modern surfacing is ridiculously quiet compare to 1994 surfacing

Kilcock to Maynooth will still need resurfacing

Kermit.de.frog

If they are going to spend 100 million on 10km then they may as well do the whole thing to Kilcock which is needed. Not doing it now will only cost more down the road.

Yet another example of "what's the minimum we can get away with?".

I suspect the Maynooth junction will hardly be touched as well despite being over capacity.

L1011

While I believe it should be done to the M6 gore - any increase in costs will only be inline with construction inflation - your hyperbole adds nothing. The land is already bought here, at construction time.

Doing it in sections costs very, very little more

marno21

A feasibility study was conducted on M50-Kilcock for upgrades & widening. This seems to have been deemed viable from it.

BaronVon

I'd agree it needs to be widened as far as Kilcock. Traffic completely slows down when there's any kind of volume. The traffic exiting and entering at Kilcock to avoid the toll is a lane by itself.

Kermit.de.frog

infacteh wrote: »

I'd agree it needs to be widened as far as Kilcock. Traffic completely slows down when there's any kind of volume. The traffic exiting and entering at Kilcock to avoid the toll is a lane by itself.

Well, for some reason only half is getting done which is Ireland all over really isn't it?

Don't do it properly, do it half-assed.

An approach endorsed by our binary number moderator when it should rightly be criticised.

marno21

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Well, for some reason only half is getting done which is Ireland all over really isn't it?

Don't do it properly, do it half-assed.

An approach endorsed by our binary number moderator when it should rightly be criticised.

I also think that given the proposed implementation period that it makes sense now to plan for Leixlip-Kilcock.

However, this upgrade is not for capacity, it's to improve safety on the Maynooth-Leixlip section which is seeing regular crashes due to it being severely overcapacity, so TII are clearly going for Maynooth-Leixlip being over a certain threshold for safety reasons.

There is also a debate on the merit of 3 laning the M4 vs a dual carraigeway project somewhere else in Ireland. There is a limited funding pot available that TII have to work with. I am not agreeing with this funding limitation but it's not deniable either and it's a constraint that has to be accepted (for now)

wirelessdude01

the_syco wrote:

The Maynooth off-ramp will hopefully be changed. That roundabout should either be eliminated, or the road should straighten, and have lights at the top.

Isn't there talk of that junction being moved further out so that all the university traffic doesn't have to go through the village?

marno21

tnegun wrote: »

Off topic but anyone know why the lights on the slips at junctions 5,6 and 7 have been switched off for the last 6 months or more? The junctions themselves are lit just the slips to and from the M4 are permanently off.

Turning off the lights to raise a few bob to pay the consultants fees for this project.

L1011

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Well, for some reason only half is getting done which is Ireland all over really isn't it?

Don't do it properly, do it half-assed.

An approach endorsed by our binary number moderator when it should rightly be criticised.

Leixlip-Kilcock in one go would have a price tag that would ensure it was pushed down the list and we'd be waiting years for it to happen at all

Leixlip-Maynooth and then Maynooth-Kilcock with their lower price tags will get done quicker. There will be a cost increase almost entirely attributable to construction price inflation which in normal circumstances is close to actual inflation.

Same applied with the M1 widening - it was done J2 to J3 in one project and J3 to J4 in another - the very next year IIRC.

You need a bit more awareness of how budgeting works.

Redsoxfan

wirelessdude01 wrote:

Isn't there talk of that junction being moved further out so that all the university traffic doesn't have to go through the village?

While the current junction is a right balls, and there doesn't seem to be any room to improve significantly without relocation, anyone got any suggestions for how the relocated junction would be linked to Maynooth/Straffan?

Have plans ever been drawn up or shared?

tnegun

I saw something with a junction for Maynooth further west I think it was part of the outer orbital route from Navan to Naas.

L1011

Junction on the Rathcoffey Road bridge, linked back by an arc of the ringroad built in the reservation between Straffan Wood and the motorway. No detailed design exists (in public anyway)

donspeekinglesh

It's very narrow with sharp turns between Straffan Wood and Straffan Road. I was really surprised when I saw how far down the Straffan Wood estate went.

tnegun

Thats exactly what I remember seeing maybe it was a mock up on here at some stage?

L1011

donspeekinglesh wrote: »

It's very narrow with sharp turns between Straffan Wood and Straffan Road. I was really surprised when I saw how far down the Straffan Wood estate went.

The original ringroad plan was to use the Meadowbrook Link and then this reservation in Beaufield Estate but clearly that plan was dropped early on and would have required CPOing the houses between it and the Rathcoffey Road anyway. But the ringroad was also meant to come out directly opposite the Meadowbrook Link - you can see the reservation line, broken by the back of Lidl. However now it is to the South of Lidl, stub already built.

The construction of Hayfield has made any tie in at the Straffan Road even tighter now.

the_syco

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Isn't there talk of that junction being moved further out so that all the university traffic doesn't have to go through the village?

Not sure. Newtown road could be widened, but you'll be going through estates, so can't see it happening. You could have it up Meadowbrook Road, but Parson Street rules it out, as you can't widen the street there.

So can't see where it'd be pushed back to?

tnegun wrote: »

I saw something with a junction for Maynooth further west I think it was part of the outer orbital route from Navan to Naas.

http://www.irishmotorwayinfo.com/inex/roads/m45/m45.html
A lot further west. Heck, it's beyond Kilcock! Also, it'll be tolled.

L1011 wrote: »

The original ringroad plan was to use the Meadowbrook Link and then this reservation in Beaufield Estate but clearly that plan was dropped early on and would have required CPOing the houses between it and the Rathcoffey Road anyway. But the ringroad was also meant to come out directly opposite the Meadowbrook Link - you can see the reservation line, broken by the back of Lidl. However now it is to the South of Lidl, stub already built.

The construction of Hayfield has made any tie in at the Straffan Road even tighter now.

Through Maynooth University? Considering how much money it gets teh town, splitting it won't be done lightly. That'd get some pushback. Then there's the graveyard. Wiping out Newtown Inn could be a good thing, though :pac:

Also, pushing it through an established estate? Can't see that happening.

L1011

the_syco wrote: »

Through Maynooth University? Considering how much money it gets teh town, splitting it won't be done lightly. That'd get some pushback. Then there's the graveyard. Wiping out Newtown Inn could be a good thing, though :pac:

Also, pushing it through an established estate? Can't see that happening.

It was only ever going to go to the Rathcoffey Road in the original plans. The plans for a full circle ring are from this decade. The original plans are from the mid 1980s!

Estate wasn't established at the time and the shops weren't built etc etc; clearly got dropped early on but not that early that some of the reservation was required.

And the Newtown Inn is up for sale with planning to knock it!

davidcostigan

Does anyone know if there’s been any progress on this

marno21

davidcostigan wrote: »

Does anyone know if there’s been any progress on this

Should be an initial public consultation for the feasibility study/constraints study before the end of the year

eskerman

infacteh wrote: »

I'd agree it needs to be widened as far as Kilcock. Traffic completely slows down when there's any kind of volume. The traffic exiting and entering at Kilcock to avoid the toll is a lane by itself.

Remove the toll - and its a lot cheaper then €100million - that toll has screwed I the flow and also turned Enfield into a rat run

annfield1978

marno21 wrote: »

Should be an initial public consultation for the feasibility study/constraints study before the end of the year

Dont think a consultant has been appointed yet, although tender documents are ready to go

marno21

annfield1978 wrote: »

Dont think a consultant has been appointed yet, although tender documents are ready to go

Was mentioned in the Dail earlier in the year that consultants were to be appointed by May. Must never have been tendered in that case - thanks as always.

mydiscworld

eskerman wrote: »

Remove the toll - and its a lot cheaper then €100million - that toll has screwed I the flow and also turned Enfield into a rat run

I wonder how many years left in the toll contract?

EDIT: contract signed 2003 for 30 years
https://www.tii.ie/roads-tolling/projects-and-improvements/ppp/m4m6-kilcock-kinnegad/

L1011

That toll gives TII a nice capacity payment (revenue sharing over a certain figure) and the state a very nice VAT income so don't expect them to do anything with it until 2033 and possibly retain it after too.

annfield1978

This has now come out to tender for Phases 1 to 4

marno21

According to Michael Nolan of TII, this will include the pilot provision of a bus lane between J5 and J7, giving a continuous bus lane along the corridor between Maynooth and the M50.

L1011

The one Dublin Bus a day using the M4 from Maynooth to the city was dropped a number of years ago! Will help long-distance buses and may encourage someone to operate a private Swords Express/Ashbourne Connect/Balbriggan Express style service either.

Jayuu

Hopefully as part of this they'll improve the junction at Maynooth.

The roundabout on the westbound side is way too small for capacity at peak times and don't even talk about the eastbound side where there isn't even a roundabout and traffic has to turn right across the flow if heading to Dublin from the Straffan road!

JupiterKid

Jayuu wrote: »

Hopefully as part of this they'll improve the junction at Maynooth.

The roundabout on the westbound side is way too small for capacity at peak times and don't even talk about the eastbound side where there isn't even a roundabout and traffic has to turn right across the flow if heading to Dublin from the Straffan road!

Yes, the Maynooth interchange needs to be a full overhead roundabout configuration with two bridges over the M4, like at Celbridge North. Pity it wasn’t built this way when the section of M4 opened back in 1994.

L1011

They're quite land constrained so the suggestion previously has been a second interchange on the Rathcoffey Road. They would need to widen out to it if doing that.

It'd also be closer than you are meant to have junctions on a 120kmh road

veryangryman

L1011 wrote: »

They're quite land constrained so the suggestion previously has been a second interchange on the Rathcoffey Road. They would need to widen out to it if doing that.

It'd also be closer than you are meant to have junctions on a 120kmh road

Kinnegad has them fairly close when going Westbound M4->M6. 3 junctions within around 2KM of each other. Kinnegad East, M6, Kinnegad West.

I'm not saying its a great idea, just saying it's been done.

Seth Brundle

It could be done using link roads similar to the M50 and the link roads between junctions 13 & 14.
Remove existing M4W on ramp and M4E off ramp
Travelling West...
M4 --> Maynooth use existing exit
Maynooth --M4 - use new slip @ Rathcoffey Rd

Travelling East
M4--> Maynooth use new slip @ Rathcoffey rd
Maynooth --> M4 use existing ramp

have link roads joining the two.

Carawaystick

L1011 wrote: »

They're quite land constrained so the suggestion previously has been a second interchange on the Rathcoffey Road. They would need to widen out to it if doing that.

It'd also be closer than you are meant to have junctions on a 120kmh road

M1 J2&3 are less than a km apart, and on a D3M also

marno21

L1011 wrote: »

They have withheld resurfacing for nearly a decade due to this plan - everyone within a km of the motorway should welcome this as modern surfacing is ridiculously quiet compare to 1994 surfacing

Kilcock to Maynooth will still need resurfacing

https://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/news/433820/hope-that-planned-work-on-m4-motorway-in-kildare-will-reduce-noise-levels.html

Partial resurfacing to start shortly

shanec1928

marno21 wrote: »

https://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/news/433820/hope-that-planned-work-on-m4-motorway-in-kildare-will-reduce-noise-levels.html

Partial resurfacing to start shortly

In typical Irish fashion, wait till all the traffic is about to re appear and start the work ffs:mad:

marno21

annfield1978 wrote: »

This has now come out to tender for Phases 1 to 4

Article on this

https://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/news/436347/tender-for-preliminary-work-on-kildare-m4-widening-work.html

marno21

https://kfmradio.com/news/16092019-1215/listen-pre-assessment-work-m4-grade-begin-shortly

Consultants to be appointed shortly.

roadmaster

Coming up from the west this evening I got off at maynooth my Jesus the junction on the off ramp at lidl is mental . Will the upgrade works include work at this junction?

L1011

There's bugger all space to do much so it's likely there'll be a second junction instead; possibly two bridges west and the southern arm of the ring road built to distribute traffic

Possibly not at the same time though!

derrymcorry

On a related note, when is the D3AP section of the N4 from M50 J7 to M4 J5 going to be redesignated as motorway? Very little work needs to be done, the bus lanes could be converted into hard shoulders and the junctions would need some remedial work including the removal of the Dodsboro junction.

Why hasn't this been done already?

tnegun

The footpaths, bike lanes and bus stops probably prevent that?

derrymcorry

tnegun wrote: »

The footpaths, bike lanes and bus stops probably prevent that?

They could be removed.

I just find it odd that the M4 will be widened to D3M but there is already a D3AP section running from the M50 that could be redesignated meaning that the M4 would go from the M50 interchange to Mullingar as motorway standard. Redesignation is necessary to protect the road from inappropriate development.

Seth Brundle

derrymcorry wrote: »

They could be removed.

I just find it odd that the M4 will be widened to D3M but there is already a D3AP section running from the M50 that could be redesignated meaning that the M4 would go from the M50 interchange to Mullingar as motorway standard. Redesignation is necessary to protect the road from inappropriate development.

Yaay more money spent on unsustainable transport whilst displacing all those who choose to travel sustainably.
:rolleyes:

markpb

derrymcorry wrote: »

They could be removed.

What would be the benefit of that? It’s a short stretch of heavily congested road. You’d be inconveniencing a lot of people just to get some blue signs and a slight increase in speed that you can only use late at night.

derrymcorry

markpb wrote: »

What would be the benefit of that? It’s a short stretch of heavily congested road. You’d be inconveniencing a lot of people just to get some blue signs and a slight increase in speed that you can only use late at night.

Because it is ridiculous to have a D3M motorway flowing onto a D3AP road flowing onto a motorway again. There should be motorway-on-motorway interchanges as there are with the M1/M50 interchange etc.