gilly2308 wrote: » I still think three years for what should be a reasonably straightforward build is way too much, this would not take three years in most other countries.
Cookiemunster wrote: » Is it that straight forward? It's an online upgrade that has to occur while keeping the road open at the current capacity.
pad199207 wrote: » This is what happens with the Newlands Flyover
pad199207 wrote: » No you see in this country they say things will take 3 or 4 years to build. And then it ends up taking about 2 years for it to be built. So when the lads finish up "ahead of schedule" they think they're brilliant even though they know perfectly well it was only going to take 2 years. This is what happens with the Newlands Flyover
gilly2308 wrote: » Ha ha that's so true pad199207, thank god the days are gone when they would just literally bypass a town and that was it. A local cowboy would be given the contract after dropping a few brown envelopes, and the job itself would take years to complete. Yes there is no doubt that we have improved immeasurably in road building in this country, helped no doubt by EU rules that projects had to be tendered internationally, but I think that adding an extra lane in both directions on the M7 from J9 to J11 is not exactly a major feat of construction brilliance, and could be done a lot quicker. Yes I realise that new junctions are to be built as well as the bypass of Sallins, but the extra lane is of far greater importance in the grand scheme of things.
marno21 wrote: » The work on the central median can easily be done by shifting traffic over to the hard shoulder, there was works in the last year to strengthen the shoulder so it's suitable for traffic running. Then the traffic can be shifted towards the centre so work can be done on the verges. Obviously with a 60km/h limit.
benny79 wrote: » Is it not going from J9 to J12? thats what I taught.. As only widening to one junction wont make a whole lot of difference!
rameire wrote: » nope Jn9 to jn11, 3 lanes. re-jig of Jn9, new jn9a, jn10 rebuild and re-jig, jn11 end of construction.
pad199207 wrote: » What's the re jig of J9? Is it going to be different than the current interchange ?
_Kaiser_ wrote: » I still remain unconvinced that just adding an extra lane to/from J11 will solve anything really for the disruption and cost involved Just like the N7 from the M50, it'll be a case of most traffic sitting in lanes 2 and 3 with lane 1 pretty much empty most of the time, with the more impatient sorts weaving between all 3 lanes to try and get a car length ahead. As it is, the existing J9-11 section (south) is a mess with cars jumping on at J9 and forcing their way into lane, ditto at 10, and then the brake light waves start as they dive for the M9 at the last minute. I can't see that changing with an extra lane if M50 behavior is any indication. It may move the existing southbound problems to J11 I suppose I think a far better use of the money would be to develop/find some sort of alternative route that takes the pressure off this one motorway from the M50 as far as Kildare town. Maybe do something with the N81? At the very least put in motorway grade link roads between the M4/7/N81 before you get to the M50... an "unofficial" outer M50 if you will, which I think would do a lot more to relieve the strain. Of course, if money was no object I'd link the M11 as well but you have the Wicklow mountains in the way. I just don't see the ROI being worthwhile for this one.. and isn't it to be slowed to 100 km/h as well? That'll just be a mess.. as it is the 3-lane N7 is quite capable of handing 120 km/h much of the time... and indeed that's what a lot of traffic does anyway.
Middle Man wrote: » Put a few dedicated squad cars on it - bet that will change driving attitudes!
pad199207 wrote: » The contracts for this project aren't going to be awarded until June at least. Did ya ever hear the likes?
ukoda wrote: » Over the last few months on occasions I've seen a squad car / bike parked on this stretch of road just sitting there with lights flashing. It caused absolutely chaos as every one was jamming on brakes and slowing down to stupid levels of speed and traffic backed up for about a mile.
Middle Man wrote: » That's the problem - fixation on speed. Garda enforcement should also concentrate on lane discipline and safe distancing as well as general obedience regarding the rules of the road.
ukoda wrote: » Yes they should pull people for hogging the outside and middle lane, but it starts with education, you shouldn't be allowed onto a motorway until someone explains to you that you keep left unless overtaking. Our driver testing needs an overhaul too I think
benny79 wrote: » Although right... how is that visible in this country? Our road network and public transport is in the stone ages.. We are years behind.. the N7 is 3 lanes to Naas its bumper to bumper at peak times and not far off most of the day.. so how do they all fit in the left hand lane as the rules of the road state? its impossible..
Deedsie wrote: » People's obsession with driving everywhere is the problem. There are alternative options for many people and many many unnecessary journeys.
Deedsie wrote: » Bus Éireann is in financial turmoil due to people not using it.
gilly2308 wrote: » I couldn't agree more that a dual carriageway linking the M7 and M4 would be a far more sensible option, and would stop the farcical situation of all traffic on the M7 which is the second busiest road in the country having to go as far as the M50 to continue their journey.
gilly2308 wrote: » The amount of traffic on the M7 at 6am is frightening, and only goes to show how far some people are travelling. This is a serious quality of life issue, but our government are perfectly content to see most new jobs go to Dublin, while the rest of the country either dies or barely gets by. You wouldn't hold up much hope that they will ever get it right, but it's shameful that so many people's lives are affected so badly by the shambolic thinking at the top in this country.
