nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

M7 - Naas/Newbridge Bypass Upgrade [Junction 9a now open]

JupiterKid

Following on from the suggestion of a poster, this thread has been set up to discuss the need for widening the M7.

The section of the M7 IMO in immediate need (really a backlog need) for widening is the section from the Maudlins Interchange at Naas to the M9 interchange - basically the original 1983 Naas Bypass and half of the 1993 Newbridge Bypass. Is this likely to proceed in the near future?

Would the central median be wide enough for widening to D3M here? I'm pretty sure it is wide enough on the Newbridge bypass section but I'm not so sure in the case of the Naas Bypass.

Also, what bridges will need to be demolished and rebuilt? Or would it be more practical to drop the hard shoulder through the existing bridges?

What about the proposal a few years back to build a new junction at on the Naas Bypass at Osberstown? Will it still go ahead?

In the longer term, does anyone see a need to widen the M7 to the N7/M8 junction?

Find more posts tagged with

m7 motorway

Quick Links

Comments

Mantis Toboggan

Plenty of room for extra lanes.

Carawaystick

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's a hard shoulder on the vast majority of the overground section of the M50

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

pad199207

CeilingFly wrote: »

One extra lane each side and plenty of space.

The one thing they got right when laying it initially was to ensure enough space for extra lane.

there would be enough space for 4 lanes in each direction, but sure look our traffic jams aren’t “bad enough” to facilitate 4 lane motorways in Ireland

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Mantis Toboggan

pad199207 wrote: »

there would be enough space for 4 lanes in each direction, but sure look our traffic jams aren’t “bad enough” to facilitate 4 lane motorways in Ireland

It's typical Ireland, no forward thinking whatsoever.

CeilingFly

Tyson Fury wrote: »

It's typical Ireland, no forward thinking whatsoever.

Yep, typical Irish negative comment.

When the m50 was built, not only did they ensure enough room for three lanes, they did most of the ground works so that when it was widened, it was relatively simple.

Excellent forward thinking.

And there are four lanes between finglas and tallaght.

Pablod

Don't want to sound negative but it will only be a matter of time shortly after its finished that volumes increase and we'll be back to square one again..
In addition to the extra 3rd lane they should put an auxiliary lane between jn10 & jn11 - the space is there for it

Middle Man

Tyson Fury wrote: »

It's typical Ireland, no forward thinking whatsoever.

Forward thinking would have meant the inclusion of the DART Expansion programme as a major part of the solution regarding the development of the motorway network around Dublin - it is obvious that the M50 in it's current form works pretty well outside of peak hours, but anyone with half a brain would have known that the M50 along with the upgraded radials alone could never cope with the peak demand - had the DART Expansion been implemented straight after the M50 upgrade, so many cars would have been taken off the roads and thousands more people would be on the trains.

benny79

Middle Man wrote: »

Forward thinking would have meant the inclusion of the DART Expansion programme as a major part of the solution regarding the development of the motorway network around Dublin - it is obvious that the M50 in it's current form works pretty well outside of peak hours, but anyone with half a brain would have known that the M50 along with the upgraded radials alone could never cope with the peak demand - had the DART Expansion been implemented straight after the M50 upgrade, so many cars would have been taken off the roads and thousands more people would be on the trains.

Or an underground which is proven to work in loads of countries all over the world but that would make sense wouldn't it.

SoupyNorman

Pablod wrote: »

Don't want to sound negative but it will only be a matter of time shortly after its finished that volumes increase and we'll be back to square one again..
In addition to the extra 3rd lane they should put an auxiliary lane between jn10 & jn11 - the space is there for it

Cant say I fully agree, Red cow to Naas North generally moves well in peak rush hour as long as there are no accidents, going from 3 to 2 lanes is obviously the huge bottleneck. I get what your saying but I think the way to sort that road out once and for all is average speed cameras, looks to have worked wonders in the port tunnel.

It's not just about volume on the road, it's the aggressive driving we all see on a daily basis. If everyone had to stick to 100kph, you'd see improvements overnight.

Pablod

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Cant say I fully agree, Red cow to Naas North generally moves well in peak rush hour as long as there are no accidents, going from 3 to 2 lanes is obviously the huge bottleneck. I get what your saying but I think the way to sort that road out once and for all is average speed cameras, looks to have worked wonders in the port tunnel.

It's not just about volume on the road, it's the aggressive driving we all see on a daily basis. If everyone had to stick to 100kph, you'd see improvements overnight.

Yes I agree the main bottle neck is at jn9 3 to 2 lanes,

But I still think an auxiliary lane between jn10 & jn11 would help a lot, because there is a 2nd type of bottleneck between jn10 & jn11 and that ties into your 2nd point with driver behaviour...
There is the volume of traffic trying to get off at jn11 conflicting with traffic carrying beyond jn11 in combination with slow traffic sitting on the inside lane which causes driver to get aggressive and lane hope, then jump off at jn11 at last minute...

s14driftking

The barriers took there first victim today an Naas North exit and car was going south. Didn’t look to be any barriers moved or damaged but I’d imagion the car is wrote off

regedit

At these early days, when barriers are just being erected and drivers are just getting used to new layout, I cannot but not remark the total lack of driving culture among some (unfortunately) most drivers. AS someone commented previously its pretty much dangerous doing 60 km/h. I've had cars beeping the horn and flashing the lights at me. People are nervous, stressed out and agitated and everyone wants to get to work/home asap.
i think there needs to be a much stronger Garda presence. Average speed cameras would be the best solution and obviate the need for widening I suppose...

sea12

I know mod has said we can't talk about speed on this section. But seriously just keep up with the flow of traffic and you won't be causing an accident. Guards won't pick u out if your in the flow of traffic. U'll only cause an accident trying to be a hero sticking to 60 km.

Anyway I see they have made decent progress in the last week. The hedge has broadly being removed. The dividing wire is up on most of it and the they are digging up the posts.

spacetweek

Tyson Fury wrote: »

It's typical Ireland, no forward thinking whatsoever.

Well the Naas Bypass was left with enough space for 6 lanes 35 years in advance (it opened in 1983).

Chris_5339762

The whole of the M7 to Portlaoise was built with D3 in mind. Its a shame the M7 from Portlaoise to the M7/8 split wasn't.

In fact the only bit of the interurbans modern builds with D3 future proofing is the M6 from Rathmorrisey into Galway.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Middle Man

benny79 wrote: »

Or an underground which is proven to work in loads of countries all over the world but that would make sense wouldn't it.

The DART Underground would be an essential element of the DART Expansion Programme. However, we'd also need to see lines like Metro North etc.

This is my 1000th post!

CeilingFly

benny79 wrote: »

Or an underground which is proven to work in loads of countries all over the world but that would make sense wouldn't it.

How many cities with a population of about 1.2m have an underground?

In London, crossrail is costing almost €20 billion.

To put it in perspective, the M9 from kilcullen to Waterford cost €1.5bn.

The proposed m45 outer ring road has a current cost estimate of about €2.2bn.

Middle Man

CeilingFly wrote: »

How many cities with a population of about 1.2m have an underground?

In London, crossrail is costing almost €20 billion.

To put it in perspective, the M9 from kilcullen to Waterford cost €1.5bn.

The proposed m45 outer ring road has a current cost estimate of about €2.2bn.

Here's one - the very next country!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyne_and_Wear_Metro

...and one in Dublin's European lookalike!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Metro

marno21

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

The whole of the M7 to Portlaoise was built with D3 in mind. Its a shame the M7 from Portlaoise to the M7/8 split wasn't.

In fact the only bit of the interurbans modern builds with D3 future proofing is the M6 from Rathmorrisey into Galway.

I think if we ever reach the stage where traffic on the M7 between J18 and J19 is above capacity then we need to be talking about 5/6 lanes east of Naas

If you put all the M6, N17 and N18 cars onto the Rathmorrissey-Galway stretch you could see volumes reaching capacity but I can't see this ever happening given current M17 usage. It shows our definition of "future proofing" that the M6 west of Rathmorrissey is specced for 3 lanes but ends at an at grade roundabout.

serfboard

marno21 wrote: »

It shows our definition of "future proofing" that the M6 west of Rathmorrissey is specced for 3 lanes but ends at an at grade roundabout.

To be fair, you know (or you should know) that the intention was for the M6 to continue around Galway via the Galway City Bypass/Outer Ring Road and that the termination at an at-grade roundabout was a "temporary little measure".

CeilingFly

Middle Man wrote: »

Here's one - the very next country!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyne_and_Wear_Metro

...and one in Dublin's European lookalike!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Metro

They are not underground systems - only part are underground.

Similarly in Dublin there are plans for part underground service, but never a full underground system.

There are hundreds of cities similar size to Dublin, but very few even have a part underground system as the cost is prohibitive.

It would be lovely to have one - but the tax increases to fund it would be crazy

Chris_5339762

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No.

But it still seemed a bit silly to have that final 15 or so km of narrow median, narrow bridges when the whole of the rest of the route to Dublin is wide median.

sdanseo

marno21 wrote: »

I think if we ever reach the stage where traffic on the M7 between J18 and J19 is above capacity then we need to be talking about 5/6 lanes east of Naas

If you put all the M6, N17 and N18 cars onto the Rathmorrissey-Galway stretch you could see volumes reaching capacity but I can't see this ever happening given current M17 usage. It shows our definition of "future proofing" that the M6 west of Rathmorrissey is specced for 3 lanes but ends at an at grade roundabout.

I'd say if that happens we should be looking at a new route to be honest. The M25 proves that 4 and 5 lanes doesn't necessarily improve things, and especially not unless there is a sea-change in attitudes to lane discipline along with VSL. As it is, J1/J9M50 needs a total redesign and access to Monsastery Road removed but that will only help access to the M50 and do nothing for those stuck in the perpetual problem of access to the City.

The N81 could probably be dualled/tripled in time to meet the M9 east of Naas with minimal CPO, although it would be maybe 1km parallell to the N7 for a km or two - and of course the terrain is challenging.

North through Kildare could also work, there's about 6 industrial units in the way but plenty of space at Parkwest to finally fix the M50 junction 8 issue!

Long term - like, after 2040 - I can't see how the N7 alone can be the only link to pretty much everything south of Galway and west of Portlaoise.

Carawaystick

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

In fact the only bit of the interurbans modern builds with D3 future proofing is the M6 from Rathmorrisey into Galway.

Apart from the M1 Airport to Lissenhall which was D3'd with little fuss a few years ago
the M11 south of Newtownmountkennedy
the M11 Arklow isn't a modern build
The M4 tolled section - the original M4 is also wide, but again not a modern build
...

marno21

Carawaystick wrote: »

Apart from the M1 Airport to Lissenhall which was D3'd with little fuss a few years ago
the M11 south of Newtownmountkennedy
the M11 Arklow isn't a modern build
The M4 tolled section - the original M4 is also wide, but again not a modern build
...

He's referring to modern builds as in the stretches of dual carriageway/motorway opened under Transport 21, namely Limerick-Portlaoise, Rathcormac-Portlaoise, Kinnegad-Galway etc

The original motorway plans were Dublin-Dundalk, Dublin-Kinnegad, Dublin-Portlaoise and Dublin-Bray with the M50 also, and these were all built to a very high spec

sea12

Slow but steady progress removing the hedgerow and steel rope where they have it barricades off. About 3/4 of it down now. Such a pity they won't work weekends at it when roads are quiet. An extra 4o% time available gone to waste

road_high

sea12 wrote: »

Slow but steady progress removing the hedgerow and steel rope where they have it barricades off. About 3/4 of it down now. Such a pity they won't work weekends at it when roads are quiet. An extra 4o% time available gone to waste

It seems in this country we can't plan infrastructure and then when it comes (usually two decades later), we can't build it at an appropriate speed either.