Roads update Q2 2019

marno21

Roads update Q2 2019

It has been yet another quite quarter for road upgrades in Ireland, with another host of missed targets, false starts and general inaction. At this stage, of the 9 projects to start in 2019, 1 has started construction, and one has been confirmed to be deferred to 2020. It seems abundantly clear now that this current Government will not be a major facilitator of roads projects, after many years of inaction, the planned ramp up in investment in 2019 has not come to fruition.

Here's what took place during Q2:

N2 Ardee-Castleblayney: Jacobs began work on Phase 1 with public consultation on the constraints study underway in late June.
N2 Clontibret-NI border: Jacobs began work on Phase 1 with public consultation on the constraints study underway in late June.
N3 Virginia bypass: Tender issued for appointment of consultants for Phases 1-4
N5 Ballaghaderreen-Scramoge: A rare example of a project advancing at speed. Archaelogical works began this quarter, with CPO ongoing and clearance work to begin shortly. Confirmed start date of late 2020.
N4 Collooney-Castlebaldwin: Earthworks are continuing with blasting beginning north of Castlebaldwin. Completion expected in Q4 2021.
M6 Galway Ring Road: Further information requested by An Bord Pleanala. Decision not expected until 2020.
M7 Naas/Newbridge widening: 3 lanes from J8 to J10 opened in June with completion of the remainder expected. Work continues on the remainder of the mainline plus the new J9A and J10
N8/N25/N40 Dunkettle Interchange: The project, which was originally having an iron clad start date of Q1 2019, remains unstarted, with no sign yet of Departmental/Cabinet approval to begin the scheme.
N11/M11 M50-Coyne's Cross: Constraints study now underway, with minor work southbound at Kilmacanogue now at tender.
M11 Gorey-Enniscorthy: Project almost at completion with just lining and signs work remaining. Project due to open in July
N11/N25 Oilgate-Rosslare Harbour: Consultants appointed for Phases 1-4 in May.
N25 New Ross bypass: Mainline works appear complete bar the bridge and approaches from the Glenmore side. The bridge deck is to be complete in July with the project to open in Q4 2019
N55 Athlone-Ballymahon: Emerging preferred route was published in June, project now on hold pending TII funding to proceed to preliminary design
N56 Mountcharles-Inver: Phase 1 opened to traffic in May 2019, with the second phase at tender stage.

No sign of a route for the Slane bypass, submission of Adare bypass to ABP either.

marno21

Phase 7 - Completion
N56 Mountcharles-Drumbeigh [2.5km T1SC] [open to traffic]
N86 Camp-Ballygarret [1.1km T3SC] [open to traffic]
N86 Ballynasare-Lispole [2.7km T3SC] [open to traffic]

Phase 6 - Construction
N4 Collooney-Castlebaldwin [14km T2DC + 1km T1SC] [construction underway; Q4 2021 completion]
M7 Naas/Newbridge bypass widening [mid 2019 completion]
M7 J9-J11 junction works [13.5km D3M] [mid 2019 (J9A) + 2019 (J10) completion]
N8/N25/N40 Dunkettle Interchange [prelim works underway, full start summer 2019]
M11 Gorey-Enniscorthy [27km D2M] [Q3 2019 completion]
N25 New Ross PPP [4km T1DC + 10km T2DC] [Q4 2019 completion]
N56 Kilkenny-Letterilly [3.6km T3SC] [2019 completion]
N59 Kilmeena [2.6km T3SC] [2019/early 2020 completion]

Phase 5 II - Tender
N5 Westport-Turlough [20km T2DC + 5km SC] [Q4 2019 start]
N22 Macroom-Ballyvourney [22km T2DC] [Q3 2019 start]
N56 Drumbeigh-Inver [2.5km T1SC] [mid 2019 start]
N59 Maam Cross-Bunnakill [5km T3SC] [2019 start]
N59 Kilmeena-Westport [Q4 2019 start]

PIN (Prior Information Notice) for tender issued:
N52 Ardee bypass [5km T2SC] [2019 start]
N56 Letterilly-Kilraine [7.5km T3SC] [2019 start]
N56 Dungloe-Cloghbolie [7.5km T3SC] [2019 start]


Phase 5 - Advance works and land acquisition
N5 Ballaghaderreen-Scramoge [35km T1SC] [CPO & advance works underway; late 2020 start]
N59 Moycullen bypass [4.5km T1SC] [tender expected H2 2019]
N59 Bunnakill-Oughterard [12km T3SC] [in queue; phased implementation]
N59 Derrada-Newport [4.7km T3SC] [advance works ongoing]
N59 Derrada-Mulranny [in queue; phased implementation]
N69 Listowel bypass [6km SC] [land acquisition; March 2020 start]
N86 Dingle-Lispole [10km T3SC] [in queue; phased implementation]
N86 Ballynasare-Annascaul [4.7km T3SC] [tender expected 2019]
N86 Gortbreagoge-Doonore South [6.3km T3SC] [in queue; phased implementation]
N86 Doonore South-Ballygarret [3.3km T3SC] [tender expected 2019]
N86 Camp-R560 [1.1km T3SC] [in queue; phased implementation]

Phase 4 - Statutory process
M6 Galway City Ring Road [12km M + 6km T1SC] [decision due early 2020]
M28 Cork-Ringaskiddy [12km M] [decision due Q3 2019 from High Court]

Phase 3 - Design
N3 Clonee-M50 [5km D3M/T1DC]
M21 Adare-Rathkeale-Foynes [16km M + 17km T2DC] [submission to ABP due]

Phase 2 - Route selection
N2 Slane bypass [preferred route announcement due]
M11 J4 Bray- J14 Coyne's Cross [23km] [options to be published July 2019]
N13/N56 Letterkenny Bypass + DC upgrade [emerging preferred route published]
N13/N15 Ballybofey/Stranorlar bypass [emerging preferred route published]
N14 Letterkenny-Lifford [19km T2DC] [emerging preferred route published]
N55 Athlone-Ballymahon [on hold pending design funding]
N70 Milltown bypass [route options published]**
N72 Mallow Relief Road (design & planning consultants to be appointed]

Phase 1 - Feasibility study/project scope
N2 Clontibret-NI Border [28km] [constraints study]
N2 Ardee-Castleblayney [32km] [constraints study]
N11/N25 Oilgate-Rosslare [consultants appointed]
M20 Cork-Limerick [83km M] [consultants appointed]

N2 Ashbourne-Kilmoon Cross [consultants to be appointed shortly]
N3 Virginia bypass [consultants to be appointed shortly]
M4 Leixlip-Maynooth [consultants to be appointed shortly]
N4 Mullingar-Roosky [52km T1/T2DC] [consultants to be appointed shortly]
N4 Carrick on Shannon-Dromod [21km T2DC]
N17 Knock-Collooney [55km T2DC]
N21 Abbeyfeale relief road [consultants to be appointed shortly]
N21 Newcastlewest bypass [consultants to be appointed shortly]
N22/N23 Farranfore-Killarney [27km T2DC + 1km SC] [consultants to be appointed by year end]
N24 Waterford-Cahir
N24 Cahir-Limerick Junction [27km T2DC] [tender for consultants shortly]
N25 Waterford-Glenmore
N25 Carrigtwohill-Midleton
M50 Dublin Port South Access Road
N52 Tullamore-Kilbeggan
N71 Bandon relief road extension**

Phase 0 - Pre-appraisal

The extended panel (to be advanced post 2027)
M1 Lissenhall-Balbriggan
N2 Kilmoon-Slane
N2 Slane-Collon
N3 Cavan-Butlersbridge
M4 Maynooth-Kilcock
N5 Turlough-Bohola
M7 Newbridge-Monasterevin
N13 Stranorlar-Letterkenny-Bridgend [10km T2DC]
N15 Sligo-Cliffony
N17 Tuam-Claremorris
N21 Rathkeale-Abbeyfeale [33km T2DC]
N22 Ballincollig-Macroom [24km T1DC]
N22/N40 Cork North Ring Road West [to be advanced under CMATS]
N24 Limerick-Caherconlish
N25 Midleton-Youghal
N25 Waterford-Dungarvan
N26 Ballina-Bohola Phase 2
N27 Cork Airport-N40 [to be advanced under CMATS]

Dead until further notice
N2 Ardee-Collon
N15 Stranorlar-Lifford
N23 Castleisland-Farranfore
N24 Boher-Limerick Junciton
N30 Moneytucker-New Ross



Feel free to compare with Q1 list, and see the main changes are dates being pushed back: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showthread.php?p=109894650

billbond4

N55, is between 8 and 13 years to complete , I would be quicker doing it with a shovel myself

Donegal Storm

N56 seems to be behind schedule, was supposed to be open this summer but still loads of work to do last time I passed through and no sign of the next stage to Dungloe starting any time soon. We've already had to endue 7 years of constant disruption and temporary lights on this road, ridiculous that it's taking a full decade to complete.

Theres a section of the N2 north of Monaghan U/C for the past year as well, seems to be going at a snails pace from my perception with little progress visible any time I see it

The Donegal TEN-T routes also progressing at a snails pace, preferred route was supposed to be announced last year which never happened, we then had a few public consultations earlier this year and not a word since. The outdated website says the EIS will take 2 years to complete so presumably that means late 2021 or 2022 before we hear any more news. Depressing..

marno21

Donegal Storm wrote: »

N56 seems to be behind schedule, was supposed to be open this summer but still loads of work to do last time I passed through and no sign of the next stage to Dungloe starting any time soon. We've already had to endue 7 years of constant disruption and temporary lights on this road, ridiculous that it's taking a full decade to complete.

Theres a section of the N2 north of Monaghan U/C for the past year as well, seems to be going at a snails pace from my perception with little progress visible any time I see it

The Donegal TEN-T routes also progressing at a snails pace, preferred route was supposed to be announced last year which never happened, we then had a few public consultations earlier this year and not a word since. The outdated website says the EIS will take 2 years to complete so presumably that means late 2021 or 2022 before we hear any more news. Depressing..

N56 next phase hasn’t even been tendered yet so it’s at least 6 months away - the next phase at Mountcharles has however.

The N2 scheme interestingly now has the dual carriage way replacement in planning - it’ll only be used for 10 years or so

The TEN-T schemes had emerging preferred routes published early this year - the N15 project is slightly behind though as there’s a series of link road options published from which one must be picked. The overall scheme is very slow though I will agree.

AugustusMinimus

Getting worried about the Dunkettle scheme.

Wildly Boaring

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Getting worried about the Dunkettle scheme.

Sisk have launched in a nice juicy price increase to go into phase 2 (the actual work) because "ground conditions were more challenging than expected at tender"


What minister is gonna sign off on that mess before a general election?

Prudent Pascal is out preaching that after the children's hospital they'll never allow the same happen again et voila.....

marno21

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Sisk have launched in a nice juicy price increase to go into phase 2 (the actual work) because "ground conditions were more challenging than expected at tender"


What minister is gonna sign off on that mess before a general election?

Prudent Pascal is out preaching that after the children's hospital they'll never allow the same happen again et voila.....

It would seem to me that the question to be asked is why full ground investigations didn't take place before the tender was published - to inform the bidders on ground conditions.

The Dunkettle Interchange scheme was approved by ABP in 2013. There has been ample time to do this.

Wildly Boaring

I'm afraid I'd be guessing as I've had no involvement in the project.



BUT what I have seen on several projects lately is to put large amounts of site investigations into the phase 1 or enabling works.

The reasoning is
1. To speed up the process
2. The absolute final figure is agreed prior phase two

Tender put out with current service drawings, topo surveys and minimal site investigations.

Contractor wins the overall job but is only given a work order for phase 1.
They carry out phase 1 (say fencing and hedge clearance) and as much site investigation that they seem necessary to completely price the main works. (Phase 2) . They submit this price and the client can either accept or reject.

The client has full view of all site investigations and full breakdown of the uplift from original contract. The uplift must be based on tendered rates. All uplift must be justified

Contractually the client can just say no. In reality it becomes a massive QS exercise and agreement is always reached.

It seems convoluted but I've seen it work very well. Lot of work for the client between phase 1 and 2 but gets rid of any ground condition or unknown services claims. Life is much easier in construction stage. "Shares the risk"

hans aus dtschl

Thanks for the info.

Something I don't understand is what exactly needs to be done in terms of ground investigations. It's all been built on in the last 30 years when building the tunnel and original interchange.

I don't work in civil eng and I naively assumed there was already a good idea of what the ground conditions on the project site are.

Can anyone on the board make sense of that for me? Do ground conditions change that much? Was the original interchange project documentation set lacking in some way?

highwaymaniac

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Thanks for the info.

Something I don't understand is what exactly needs to be done in terms of ground investigations. It's all been built on in the last 30 years when building the tunnel and original interchange.

I don't work in civil eng and I naively assumed there was already a good idea of what the ground conditions on the project site are.

Can anyone on the board make sense of that for me? Do ground conditions change that much? Was the original interchange project documentation set lacking in some way?

They don't - to me an obvious smokescreen it just does not stand up to scrutiny, the costs were seriously underestimated because the detailed design was being left to the Contractor, I'm my mind an initial guesstimate costing by TII although i suspect Sisk are trying to make the most of out if now.

Although I have heard (no facts to back this up mind you) that Sisk were wanting to do a fairly significant redesign on the alignment, reducing curve radii etc and limit piling of embankments by reducing the heights and staying out of the very poor ground areas.

Wildly Boaring

Ground conditions in this country can change completely in 10 metres.

Rock, bog, sand...... all expensive to deal with.

One reason not to do the site investigations for as contractor is that he might find a lump of rock 2 metres from where your SI said clay.

Geotechnical is also the least scientific of the civil engineering disciplines (in my opinion).

A lot of it is interpretation of holes and cores. One persons silty-clay is another's clayey-silt

If there's limestone knocking about you can have karst features. Remember your junior cert geography.... dykes and all that jazz. Well none of that is any good under a road and particularly under a structure.

Your site investigations will never be the whole picture.

Also Sisk would not be shy in adding numbers together. (Very few big contractors are)

Pete_Cavan

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

I'm afraid I'd be guessing as I've had no involvement in the project.

BUT what I have seen on several projects lately is to put large amounts of site investigations into the phase 1 or enabling works.

The reasoning is
1. To speed up the process
2. The absolute final figure is agreed prior phase two

Tender put out with current service drawings, topo surveys and minimal site investigations.

Contractor wins the overall job but is only given a work order for phase 1.
They carry out phase 1 (say fencing and hedge clearance) and as much site investigation that they seem necessary to completely price the main works. (Phase 2) . They submit this price and the client can either accept or reject.

The client has full view of all site investigations and full breakdown of the uplift from original contract. The uplift must be based on tendered rates. All uplift must be justified

Contractually the client can just say no. In reality it becomes a massive QS exercise and agreement is always reached.

It seems convoluted but I've seen it work very well. Lot of work for the client between phase 1 and 2 but gets rid of any ground condition or unknown services claims. Life is much easier in construction stage. "Shares the risk"

Are you describing the process specifically for the form of contract being used for the Dunkettle project here?

Wildly Boaring

No as per first sentence I've not seen the form of contract.

I'm looking at the news articles and inferring from them that the contract is this type or quite near. But I'm guessing.

For instance Tii are stating that the original price was ballpark to be able to compare prices.
Sisk are stating the ground conditions were worse than expected so the phase 2 price is higher than expected.

There's going to be a lot more to the contract.

The elephant in the room is the Children's Hospital.
1. No minister (Ross in this case) is going to want to explain a large increase from tender to actual costs. Pascal is on the airwaves saying the hospital was a one off, judge us on all the projects.
2. It's a running joke in the capital spend side of engineering that nothing is gonna start till the hospital is funded. The spend profile for capital is getting shoved out continuously to keep the budget balanced.

Donegal Storm

Whats the benefit of that method over the client just doing a proper ground survey? I get that it saves them time and money but you're always going to have contractors chancing their arm at a bigger payoff. It's a small working area and a couple of weeks of cores/trial holes and a GPR survey would give an accurate enough picture that the contractor wouldn't have much room to negotiate

riddlinrussell

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Ground conditions in this country can change completely in 10 metres.

Rock, bog, sand...... all expensive to deal with.

One reason not to do the site investigations for as contractor is that he might find a lump of rock 2 metres from where your SI said clay.

Geotechnical is also the least scientific of the civil engineering disciplines (in my opinion).

A lot of it is interpretation of holes and cores. One persons silty-clay is another's clayey-silt

If there's limestone knocking about you can have karst features. Remember your junior cert geography.... dykes and all that jazz. Well none of that is any good under a road and particularly under a structure.

Your site investigations will never be the whole picture.

Also Sisk would not be shy in adding numbers together. (Very few big contractors are)

There are significant Karst features under the housing estates in Carrigtohill, some very fine Caves were blocked up when they built them :mad: so there is Karst in the *relatively* nearby area, not sure what features if any are near Dunkettle, but theres definitely a fair bit of it around Cork city in general.

hans aus dtschl

Thanks for the info all
I just thought it was well known exactly what was there from the previous job.

annfield1978

N4 Mullingar to Roosky will be out in the next couple of days for Phases 1 to 4.

Consultants have been appointed for the N21 Abbeyfeale and Newcastle West Bypasses

marno21

annfield1978 wrote: »

N4 Mullingar to Roosky will be out in the next couple of days for Phases 1 to 4.

Consultants have been appointed for the N21 Abbeyfeale and Newcastle West Bypasses

N4 Mullingar-Roosky came out yesterday on etenders

The other 2.. talk about a waste of time

Thanks again for the update

Pete_Cavan

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

No as per first sentence I've not seen the form of contract.

I'm looking at the news articles and inferring from them that the contract is this type or quite near. But I'm guessing.

For instance Tii are stating that the original price was ballpark to be able to compare prices.
Sisk are stating the ground conditions were worse than expected so the phase 2 price is higher than expected.

There's going to be a lot more to the contract.

The contract being used is an NEC early engagement contract. I assume that this is the first time an NEC contract has been used for a public project in this country, certainly since the introduction of the GCCC suite. There is the civil engineering D&B contract available which is often used for road projects so I don't understand why that wasn't used. As with the Childrens Hospital, going an alternative route just creates problems.

I am not familiar with that contract but I assume that there is an element of design and build to it - contractors expected to put forward their own design proposal. Phase 1 is more likely an initial round of bids with the preferred bidder progressing to a more detailed Phase 2 negotiation. Things you mentioned earlier like fencing and hedge clearance are done separately before the main contractor gets to site.

Limerick74

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The contract being used is an NEC early engagement contract. I assume that this is the first time an NEC contract has been used for a public project in this country, certainly since the introduction of the GCCC suite. There is the civil engineering D&B contract available which is often used for road projects so I don't understand why that wasn't used. As with the Childrens Hospital, going an alternative route just creates problems.

I am not familiar with that contract but I assume that there is an element of design and build to it - contractors expected to put forward their own design proposal. Phase 1 is more likely an initial round of bids with the preferred bidder progressing to a more detailed Phase 2 negotiation. Things you mentioned earlier like fencing and hedge clearance are done separately before the main contractor gets to site.

NEC3 suite of contracts also being used on the Dublin metro project. Main difference is the Dunkettle project already has planning permission whereas Metro is being used during planning and design phases (pre-planning).

Pete_Cavan

Limerick74 wrote: »

NEC3 suite of contracts also being used on the Dublin metro project. Main difference is the Dunkettle project already has planning permission whereas Metro is being used during planning and design phases (pre-planning).

Where did you hear that they are using an NEC contract for Metrolink? How can they be using it for pre-planning, it is a construction contract for executing the works? They haven't even sought expressions of interest from potential bidders AFAIK.

Limerick74

Plan on using I should have said. That was before the NCH troubles. TII are seeking a derogation from GCCC as evident in https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2019-02-14a.206

NEC3 was also used for Luas Cross City Service Diversions contract.

Wildly Boaring

Dunkettle in trouble
https://amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/100m-upgrade-to-cork-city-traffic-blackspot-in-peril-934891.html

road_high

God this is depressing - these planned schemes are already only a fraction of what’s needed and to think even these are delayed still further is desperate