[Article] M50 upgrade approved

Victor

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0504/m50.html

Multi-million euro M50 upgrade approved
04 May 2005 19:36

An Bord Pleanála has given the go ahead for the €810 million upgrade of the M50 motorway.

The upgrade will involve the addition of a third lane in each direction, together with modification to ten interchanges and the upgrade of the Westlink toll bridge to a fully electronic free-flow facility.

The board said that it had concluded the development would not have significant adverse effects on the environment and would not be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

An Bord Pleanála received more than 250 submissions on the plans - most of them objecting to the scheme.

The Minister for Transport, Martin Cullen, has welcomed An Bord Pleanála's decision.

A spokesman for the minister said that while the upgrade would not solve all traffic problems on the M50, it would deliver real benefits to road users.

Initial work on the first phase of the upgrade between the N7 (Naas Road) and the M4 (Lucan Road) will begin in the autumn. Construction work will begin early next year.

dingding

Perhaps they ould spend some of this on signs?

Andrew Duffy

Extensive overhead gantry signs are part of the upgrade. The renderings in the EIS are full of them, and they get a bit of text too:

http://www.sdublincoco.ie/index.aspx?pageid=22&deptid=12&dpageid=355

D'Peoples Voice

I notice there is no mention of them constructing Juntion 8 on the M50.
When will they build it?
The Nangor road badly needs it, how big does ParkWest have to get before they see a need to build it?
It's not as if they haven't thought of building it before,
ffs we have junction number 7 being the N4 exit and junction number 9 being the N7 exit, and the only road perpendicular to the M50 between the N4 and the N7 is the bloody Nangor road.
So lads, why the hell is this not in the EIS.
How much traffic would it take off the Naas road between Long Mile Road junction and the Red cow roundabout if
traffic from the Nangor road could access the M50 via Junction 8 without going NEAR the Naas road.
Also if traffic from the Long Mile Road could cross the Naas road via an overpass/underpass to get to the Nangor road where they could tehn drive up to Junction 8 on the M50, it would take so much traffic off the Naas Road.
Will they do it! no, there is a conspiracy going on about not building Junction 8. even the AA go to the trouble of purposely listing the junction numbers, and everyone can clearly see that junction 8 is missing.
http://www.aaroadwatch.ie/news/story.asp?ID=680

murphaph

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

I notice there is no mention of them constructing Juntion 8 on the M50.
When will they build it?
The Nangor road badly needs it, how big does ParkWest have to get before they see a need to build it?
It's not as if they haven't thought of building it before,
ffs we have junction number 7 being the N4 exit and junction number 9 being the N7 exit, and the only road perpendicular to the M50 between the N4 and the N7 is the bloody Nangor road.
So lads, why the hell is this not in the EIS.
How much traffic would it take off the Naas road between Long Mile Road junction and the Red cow roundabout if
traffic from the Nangor road could access the M50 via Junction 8 without going NEAR the Naas road.
Also if traffic from the Long Mile Road could cross the Naas road via an overpass/underpass to get to the Nangor road where they could tehn drive up to Junction 8 on the M50, it would take so much traffic off the Naas Road.
Will they do it! no, there is a conspiracy going on about not building Junction 8. even the AA go to the trouble of purposely listing the junction numbers, and everyone can clearly see that junction 8 is missing.
http://www.aaroadwatch.ie/news/story.asp?ID=680

Junction 8 has nothing to do with the Nangor Road. It was envisaged to build a new Naas road from round about Rathcoole/Citywest which would run between the canal and the railway and feed onto the M50 at J8. Remember-traffic is not meant to travel to the city beyond the Red Cow Roundabout as the N7 ends there. Traffic is meant to join the M50 to the N4 and continue to the city that way. Of course these are all lines on maps now (that road will never be built) and people will drive what they think is the quickest way to the city, understandably.

Victor

One could build a north facing half-diamond, with a northbound on-map and a southbound off-ramp. Building a full junction would result in weaving traffic.

After all it's only a number.

Andrew Duffy

When was the N7 inside the M50 detrunked? I was about to call bull**** until I looked at the map.

jlang

Naas Road was downclassed to R110 before the Luas works started, as far as I can remember. Certainly by this 1994 SI, but may have been earlier.

D'Peoples Voice

Victor wrote:

One could build a north facing half-diamond, with a northbound on-map and a southbound off-ramp. Building a full junction would result in weaving traffic.

After all it's only a number.

Victor,
I appreciate your wit but for those people living and working around the Nangor road, it's no joke.
You've no idea the level of traffic on the Nangor/long mile road.
Have these developers even taken account of the proposed size of Parkwest over the next few years, the amount of appartments that are being built in the area. It's insane! I hate seeing roads being built for the sake of it, but the Nangor road badly needs a connection to the M50.
As an advocate of public trasnport, it really annoys me that the local authority are not going to build a bus lane on the Naas road in the short term because of the heavy levels of freight traffic it currently carries.
How ironic that a lot of this traffic comes from the Long Mile road/Nangor road trying to get onto the M50.
It just doesn't add up!

Victor

Andrew Duffy wrote:

When was the N7 inside the M50 detrunked? I was about to call bull**** until I looked at the map.

When the Chapelizod Bypass and M50 (J7-9) were built, it meant heavy traffic could avoid Inchicore and Kilmainham.

murphaph

Victor wrote:

When the Chapelizod Bypass and M50 (J7-9) were built, it meant heavy traffic could avoid Inchicore and Kilmainham.

Just out of curiosity, when was the Chapelizod bypass opened?

(and on a similar note, when was the road dualled to Newbridge originally?)

Victor

murphaph wrote:

Just out of curiosity, when was the Chapelizod bypass opened?

About 1990 give or take.

(and on a similar note, when was the road dualled to Newbridge originally?)

Early 1970s AFAIK.

MT

One of the things that concerns me about the gantry signs going up in the Republic is that they seem to follow the layout of the UK’s versions. IMO, Britain has some of the worst designed overhead signs in Europe. Often, there appears to be little vertical listing of the information above the relevant lane. Directions are written in what almost seem like paragraphs and at odds with the way most drivers read sings – from top to bottom in columns.

The Dutch layout on gantry signs is considerably superior – they’re simply much easier to read. The information is displayed in vertical lists with clearly separate panels for lanes leading to different locations. This column style is much easier on the eye. In the British equivalent, even the arrows indicating the relevant lane are often separated from the information they relate to, further adding to a dislocated and incoherent mess.

I haven’t yet seen the signs proposed for the M50 upgrade but from the few gantries that do exist, although not as bad as many in the UK, they show worrying similarities in design. A working party from the NRA should be dispatched for the Netherlands as soon as possible – they seem to have some of the best gantry signs around.


Confusing gantry - UK
http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/displayimage.php?album=44&pos=13


Easy to follow gantry (click on top right pic) - Netherlands
http://www.autosnelwegen.nl/asw/knooppunt.htm

Victor

I think the particular British sign is trying too hard.

MT

I think the particular British sign is trying too hard.

Yes, information over-load seems to be a common occurrence on British gantry signs. I reckon the cause of this is that the UK simply erects fewer sign gantries than in other European countries and so ends up having to cram more info onto each. But besides the excess amount of directions, etc. on the signs the layout is still very poor. The separate panels are too small, the info. follows an almost unique ‘paragraph’ arrangement as opposed to the much more readable column approach found almost everywhere else, and lane arrows are badly placed or entirely disconnected from the info. they relate to. Furthermore, nothing seems to be very well aligned with the relevant lanes.

So, it’s not just a problem of too much on each sign – presentation is also vital, particularly at Motorway speeds. For that matter, French gantries also contain a surfeit of info. but the vertical arrangement and superior presentation greatly diminishes this shortcoming.

The following gantry on the M50 is too much like the British ‘row’ layout and would be easier to follow if it was arranged in the Dutch ‘column’ style:

http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/displayimage.php?album=150&pos=7

Top to bottom layouts on Dutch, German and French gantries are just much easier to process at speed than this right to left layout.


Other examples:

Good vertical/column layout on a Swiss sign gantry (and they’re lit):

http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/displayimage.php?album=68&pos=9


French gantries to contain too much info. but at least they have a vertical/column layout:

http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/displayimage.php?album=65&pos=15


Not keen on this Cypriot gantry. A vertical layout is utilised but is then spoilt with arrows running from bottom to top – IMO the lane arrows should complement the flow of the info. ie. point downwards. Furthermore, the slip road info. should be given a separate panel as in Holland and France. With everything on this gantry in the one panel the directions are too compressed and at a glance, while travelling at speed, could be misleading:

http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/displayimage.php?album=69&pos=3


Again, this Austrian gantry suffers from similar defects:

http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/displayimage.php?album=68&pos=5


For the sake of comparison, here’s another egregious British offering:
http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/displayimage.php?album=44&pos=4

What is it with all the grey panelling on British/Irish signs? Seems like a waist of money on excess aluminium sheets to me – I haven’t seen it anywhere else. Is it just to block out distracting objects, buildings, etc. in your line of sight as you view a sign, eg. that block of flats in the last photo.

Even with all these varieties in mind, I still think Dutch gantry signs are the easiest to follow.

MT

I've just noticed that one of the locations on that Swiss sign has a very unfortunate name. Hope no one speaks English there!!

D'Peoples Voice

MT wrote:

Top to bottom layouts on Dutch, German and French gantries are just much easier to process at speed than this right to left layout.

In Ireland, because our signs have to be in Gaelige in addition to English,
I'd imagine writing place names vertically could cause a problem should you wish to list a number of place names on the same sign.
Even listing four places, you would immediately have to write 8 place names on the sign (4 in English & 4 in Gaelige). This could be just as difficult to read at high speed.
Of course a simple but a very expensive solution would be to double the amount of signs, and have one set all in English and the other set all in gaelige.

Anyway my problem with roads signs(excluding Motorway + National Primary road signs) in this country is not the level of information on them, but more importantly the distance they are from the junction. In many cases, you are at the junction, before you are told what lane you should be in! But that's for another forum!

MT

But the strange thing is, locations are written in vertical columns on just about all other signs, even with Gaelige versions included. This is also the case in the UK and yet on many gantry signs places names are suddenly listed in a row/paragraph format. Why not simply use the same layout on gantry signs as that used on all others?

Having said this, the reasoning you give for a ‘row’ format in Ireland could also apply in Britain. Although bilingual signs are not used – apologies to Scotland and Wales – gantries are often erected so infrequently there that each ends up with far too much info to display. In terms of space this is little different to your 8 lines as opposed to 4 scenario and could well be the cause of the ‘paragraph’ layout. Then again, the French cram their gantries with excess locations and yet still stick to a ‘column’ format.

The best solution in my view would be to erect gantries more frequently and thus allow each one to display less info. I’m still convinced the ‘column’ format and bilingual gantries can work in Ireland. Indeed, just think how unreadable those British gantries would be if they were bilingual. The paragraphs would begin to look like impenetrable block text.

On the whole, Ireland needs to utilise gantries far more for both signage and traffic lights. Signs at the side of multi-lane carriageways are too difficult to read if you’re in the outside lane passing traffic on the inside. Gantries should also encourage greater lane discipline.

D'Peoples Voice

MT wrote:

On the whole, Ireland needs to utilise gantries far more for both signage and traffic lights. Signs at the side of multi-lane carriageways are too difficult to read if you’re in the outside lane passing traffic on the inside. Gantries should also encourage greater lane discipline.

I agree!
The amount of time i've seen cars swerve across the traffic island at M50 junctions because they almost missed the turn -off.. its crazy.
Although a lot of the blame must go to the driver who in many cases is not very observant(caught up in a conversation on the mobile or to someone in the car).

Anyway as for the upgrade, I've noticed that they plan to leave many of the existing bridges in place while they build additional bridges around them. Do people think this will create more traffic problems in the short term? What would be the interenational experience? What did they use on the M1 just outside the Port Tunnel again, a bailey bridge for these circumstances.

Also, I have noticed that there is no mention of the removal of traffic lights at Newlands Cross. That's nice, free flowing and almost incessant traffic from the M50 will cause bloody mayhem at Newlands Cross. What's that Bertie, a lot done, more to do!
the saying .. head ...sand..comes to mind!

seamus

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

Also, I have noticed that there is no mention of the removal of traffic lights at Newlands Cross. That's nice, free flowing and almost incessant traffic from the M50 will cause bloody mayhem at Newlands Cross. What's that Bertie, a lot done, more to do!
the saying .. head ...sand..comes to mind!

With any luck, when the outer ring is finished, they'll remove the newlands cross junction altogether and replace it with an under/overpass, with no sliproad from the Belgard Southbound onto the N7.

murphaph

seamus wrote:

With any luck, when the outer ring is finished, they'll remove the newlands cross junction altogether and replace it with an under/overpass, with no sliproad from the Belgard Southbound onto the N7.

That sounds like a plan alright, though a southbound slip from the Belgard wouldn't be a problem really as the land is there to build it. There's no land on the north side of the N7 to do anything really.

Victor

seamus wrote:

With any luck, when the outer ring is finished, they'll remove the newlands cross junction altogether and replace it with an under/overpass, with no sliproad from the Belgard Southbound onto the N7.

There is a plan to grade separate Newlands Cross and the Monastary Road / Luas junction. I have no idea what the actual plans are (the Monasteary Road bridge was shown on the M50 upgrade drawings).

D'Peoples Voice

Victor wrote:

There is a plan..

That's half the battle!

Pardon my ignorance, but from a traffic management point of view,
when building the "new" flyovers at the N7/M50 junction,
but would it not have been easier to construct the Newlands cross junction before the "new" flyovers at the N7/M50 junction are complete.

My belief for this is, and this is just pure speculation, but if traffic is already slowed down to 60Kph because of roadworks in the area, then you're as well to get as much construction done as possible in the area( without bringing traffic all around to a standstill obviosuly).

Although not that anyone obeys 60kph roadworks signs,
the other day there was still a 60kpm sign on the N7 at the new kingswood/Adamstown road junction,
The junction only opened in January of this year,
just when is it safe to take down the 60kph sign?
I guess the developers feel that no driver obeyed it during construction,
so why would drivers obey it now!

MT

Just continuing with the new signage planned for the M50 upgrade has there been any suggestion of using variable speed limits comprehensively?

MT

D&#8217 wrote: »

I agree!
The amount of time i've seen cars swerve across the traffic island at M50 junctions because they almost missed the turn -off.. its crazy.
Although a lot of the blame must go to the driver who in many cases is not very observant(caught up in a conversation on the mobile or to someone in the car).

As well as gantry signage, another change that might aid travel on motorways is simply larger signage. Most road signs in Ireland are too small in comparison to those used in other countries. This problem is exacerbated with the bilingual signs. To accommodate two lines of information for each direction the signs should be much bigger. Those used currently have a crammed appearance and could do with much more space around the words. For that matter as well as increasing overall sign size a larger font could also be employed.

But it’s essential that if you are going to erect bilingual signs that the sign faces are large enough to accommodate the extra text without becoming incomprehensible. This is particularly the case with the Gaelige version of place names as they tend to be so much longer.

mackerski

MT wrote:

Just continuing with the new signage planned for the M50 upgrade has there been any suggestion of using variable speed limits comprehensively?

The law doesn't allow variable speed limits in any circumstances. They considered them in the working group that preceded the changeover to km/h (I was going to describe it as a speed limit reform, but they forgot that part of the brief), but they rejected them as impractical. Strange but true.

Dermot

Victor

Essentially, they can have different speed limits in different lanes, but not different limits at different times.

D'Peoples Voice

Victor wrote:

Essentially, they can have different speed limits in different lanes, but not different limits at different times.

Not surprised they have not been in a hurry to put it into effect anywhwere.
Although with 3 or 4 lane roads, it may work with no problems at all.

But surely then you would need the speed limits to appear in an overhead gantry or painted on the road to be easy to follow. We would then need two sets for each lane, one for cars, and a second to tell foreign drivers was the speed limit is for artics/buses. Of course we don't show two sets of speed limits at present, one for cars and one for trucks/buses, so I guess we could continue with our present thinking.

Victor

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

Not surprised they have not been in a hurry to put it into effect anywhwere. Although with 3 or 4 lane roads, it may work with no problems at all.

It was in existance on a non-statutory basis on the M1 Northbound as it approached the airport exit (the mainline is very straight, but the exiting traffic is subject to a sharp left turn) before the current régime.

No need for anything different for foreign traffic - the limit is the limit except where the vehicle has a type-specific limit which it can't exceed.