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

spacetweek

There's no point saying it now but this project really should have been done during the recession, when traffic was a lot less.

prunudo

spacetweek wrote: »

There's no point saying it now but this project really should have been done during the recession, when traffic was a lot less.

There's plenty of other projects that should have been started during the recession too.

marno21

spacetweek wrote: »

There's no point saying it now but this project really should have been done during the recession, when traffic was a lot less.

Plenty of projects we could have got shovel ready now that we're apparently able to piss money again and every project is in planning.

_Kaiser_

marno21 wrote: »

Plenty of projects we could have got shovel ready now that we're apparently able to piss money again and every project is in planning.

It's more about electioneering than solid proposals I fear. Very easy to postpone, change or cancel plans after the votes have been cast.

WishUWereHere

tomtraubert wrote: »

They started the widening section of the contract in January 2018, planned completion in 202 for the entire scheme (widening, junction 9a and sallins bypass). The widening was to be finished by the start of April, then Easter. It appears that it'll be at least September 2019 before the widening is officially complete.

Would be nice if You are right here, but I won't be holding my breath. One thing I am amazed at: KCC, & certain politicians have made statements about the opening of the 3 lane Mway, and ( afaik) not one has been accurate in any form. Surely, they ought to be taken to task. I am still waiting for one single prospective councillor to knock on my door canvassing, but with 6 days to go, looks like they are avoiding me...again:-)

WishUWereHere

regedit wrote: »

i think the builder underestimated this simple widening project. It bugs me that the initial period was spent not on the main section (Naas ball to M7-M9 split) but, instead, the Sallins bypass was prioritised. Serious lack of common sense. I travel the section of the road on a daily basis and what I find shocking is the attitude of the staff. Long breaks, operators sitting in their cabins, on their phones, 1 digger doing something casually while 3-4 builders are gathered around and are staring at a hole. Widening of the M50 from 2 to 3 lanes was a much smoother job.

I am not qualified to say if You are right or wrong Regedit, but I came down the M7 yesterday evening around 18h00, and up to J10, there wasn't one yellow helmet on either side of the road. Also there are at least 2 very large holes being dug ( during the week) between the Ball & Tesco. Are there problems arising? Drainage perhaps?

regedit

I took a photo yesterday from the Sallins bridge if anyone wants to compare vs previous few ones I've uploaded. It looks as if though they have tidied-up the hard shoulders and are ready for the tarmac. Speaking of which, I am not sure if I am right but, where there was existing asphalt, they seem to be adding 2-3 cm of new asphalt only. I thought for a road of such importance they'd lift the current one and slap a new one. Again, just speculating

jmkennedyie

regedit wrote: »

It looks as if though they have tidied-up the hard shoulders and are ready for the tarmac. Speaking of which, I am not sure if I am right but, where there was existing asphalt, they seem to be adding 2-3 cm of new asphalt only. I thought for a road of such importance they'd lift the current one and slap a new one. Again, just speculating

IIRC there was an upgrade along this stretch of Motorway perhaps 5 or 6 years ago to strengthen the hard shoulders in advance of this upgrade. So the inner lanes may just need a bit of planing and resurfacing.

More sections of the mainline drainage/piping works do seem complete and they have started erecting more signage posts and finalising the topsoil.

On Sallins bypass all bridge pillars of all bridges now seem ~complete.

Last Stop

The amount of people on here moaning about how long it’s taking without a basic knowledge of construction.

Someone suggested they should have focused on the mainline rather than the bypass fail to understand that the bypass is a much greater body of work. They also had strict targets to hit on this part of the project (rail underbridge construction over Easter weekend for example).

Others suggesting no one working not realising the time it takes for drainage to settle without settlement or 24 days for concrete to reach full strength etc. etc.

The contract is up until January 2020, any dates for completion before that are not fixed and are not deadlines for the contractor. The people who are giving deadlines before Jan 2020 are the people who should be given out to. It is clear to me that they are hitting the majority of their targets and will be open before Jan 2020.

Could it have been done quicker? Potentially yes but a simple understanding of the Time-Cost-Scope triangle suggests this is the best balance between time and costs.

And before anyone asks no I don’t work for either TII or SIAC, I’m just sick of the uninformed moaners on this thread who don’t understand complex (yes upgrading a live 100,000 cars per day motorway is complex) infrastructure projects.

WishUWereHere

regedit wrote: »

I took a photo yesterday from the Sallins bridge if anyone wants to compare vs previous few ones I've uploaded. It looks as if though they have tidied-up the hard shoulders and are ready for the tarmac. Speaking of which, I am not sure if I am right but, where there was existing asphalt, they seem to be adding 2-3 cm of new asphalt only. I thought for a road of such importance they'd lift the current one and slap a new one. Again, just speculating

I had a good look yesterday eveningwhile on my daily crawl. I also noticed around The Sallins bridge a lot of tidying up has been done.

2 areas stood out for me as needing a lot of work ( all SB and I am only commenting as far as J10 where I come off):
a) From Johnstown to the ball roundabout..one very deep looking hole there, and a lot of rubble, and work &
b) From the KG site to J10, again I think 2 very deep holes and a lot of machinery etc inside the fencing.

I also wondered about the tarmacadam depth. I would have thought that what's there would be dug up, and layers of new Tarmacadam laid - I seem to remember plenty of layers when the 3rd lane was added to the N7. But like You RE, just speculating.

Thanks for Your photos Regedit, nice to get a view from up above.

Pete_Cavan

WishUWereHere wrote: »

I also wondered about the tarmacadam depth. I would have thought that what's there would be dug up, and layers of new Tarmacadam laid - I seem to remember plenty of layers when the 3rd lane was added to the N7. But like You RE, just speculating.

Tarmac is done in two layers, a base course and a wearing course on top. Existing lanes would only need the wearing course replaced, new lanes would need a full new build up. Standard wearing would be 40mm thick although more might be needed on a heavily trafficked road like that.

[Deleted User]

Last Stop wrote: »

Could it have been done quicker? Potentially yes but a simple understanding of the Time-Cost-Scope triangle suggests this is the best balance between time and costs.

Can you please provide your figures/sources/evidence for making this assertion? What mysterious information is available to you that isn't to the public? I mean, you made a factual statement: anyone who understands the trade off between time, cost and scope will agree that this project is the best balance. Please back up your factual statement, or perhaps edit your post to be less dishonest.

Do you know what the direct economic cost of the congestion has been? Do you know how many billions of euro in additional social costs have been generated due to congestion?

Yet another spoofer with not a clue but desperate to defend the project.

Aontachtoir

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you know what the direct economic cost of the congestion has been? Do you know how many billions of euro in additional social costs have been generated due to congestion?

Do you?

Cookiemunster

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you please provide your figures/sources/evidence for making this assertion? What mysterious information is available to you that isn't to the public? I mean, you made a factual statement: anyone who understands the trade off between time, cost and scope will agree that this project is the best balance. Please back up your factual statement, or perhaps edit your post to be less dishonest.

Do you know what the direct economic cost of the congestion has been? Do you know how many billions of euro in additional social costs have been generated due to congestion?

Yet another spoofer with not a clue but desperate to defend the project.

There isn't an endless pot of money. If you want to the road built more quickly, you need to pay more. That money wasn't available when the project went to tender. That's not defending the project, it's simple logic. You also call the poster a spoofer, but what knowledge of civil engineering do you have?

Rulmeq

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you know what the direct economic cost of the congestion has been?

Do you?

See this is the thing, the cost of congestion can't be seen on our balance sheets, so it doesn't affect how much we can borrow or spend.

It's actually pretty similar to how we are willing to spend a fortune on our roads, yet nothing on public transport. We pretend PT is really expensive to build, while ignoring the subsidy that is paid indirectly for roads through economic costs of congestion, pollution and environmental damage. So what's good for the goose and all that.

Last Stop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can you please provide your figures/sources/evidence for making this assertion? What mysterious information is available to you that isn't to the public? I mean, you made a factual statement: anyone who understands the trade off between time, cost and scope will agree that this project is the best balance. Please back up your factual statement, or perhaps edit your post to be less dishonest.

Do you know what the direct economic cost of the congestion has been? Do you know how many billions of euro in additional social costs have been generated due to congestion?

Yet another spoofer with not a clue but desperate to defend the project.

With a background in civil engineering, I can tell you that the time-cost-scope triangle is an equilateral triangle meaning if you change one side you effect the others. This means that decreasing the time increases the cost as the scope for the job is fixed. Not being involved in the job, I can’t say specifically it’s been optimised but TII have a good track record on this and it looks like it will be completed on time if not before Jan 2020.
TII are essentially in a no win situation here. If it was done quicker, people (including yourself no doubt) would be morning about the cost!

FWIW widening a road will if anything increase congestion and there is no direct economic cost of congestion; it’s an indirect cost.

If anyone is a spoofer on this it’s you, unless you can point to experience in this area instead of simply moaning and calling out anyone who defends the project.

And once again, I have no connection to TII or SIAC before someone asks in an attempt to undermine my post

Emme

Cookiemunster wrote: »

There isn't an endless pot of money. If you want to the road built more quickly, you need to pay more. That money wasn't available when the project went to tender. That's not defending the project, it's simple logic. You also call the poster a spoofer, but what knowledge of civil engineering do you have?

I disagree about the money. The project has taken so long the labour cost must be huge. If more money had been invested in the project so it could take place over a shorter period of time the costs could have been partially or wholly outweighed by the reduction in labour costs.

Also why is so little information about the project, specifically milestones, being given to the general public? Could it be that they are making up a lot of it as they go along? I understand that it is impossible for a project like this to go precisely to plan but that does not mean there should be no plan or the general public should be kept in the dark. We after all, are the ones paying for the project.

Pete_Cavan

Emme wrote: »

I disagree about the money. The project has taken so long the labour cost must be huge. If more money had been invested in the project so it could take place over a shorter period of time the costs could have been partially or wholly outweighed by the reduction in labour costs.

It's a fixed price contract, the contractor isn't paid per worker per day on site. Your theory only works if the job gets done faster but with no increase in labour, i.e. greater productivity. A project like this is severally constrained in terms of productivity, certain works can only happen on particular weekends, regular complexes traffic management changes, just waiting for concrete to set before continuing on, etc. Even upping the workforce has limited potential due to the small working space available.

Also why is so little information about the project, specifically milestones, being given to the general public? Could it be that they are making up a lot of it as they go along? I understand that it is impossible for a project like this to go precisely to plan but that does not mean there should be no plan or the general public should be kept in the dark. We after all, are the ones paying for the project.

The contract finish date is the only contractually relevant milestone. The contractor could miss every other date on the programme but that doesn't matter as long as they meet the hand over date. Reading some of the posts on here and the things people with absolutely no idea what they are talking about come out with, it's not surprising they don't give out further information.

SoupyNorman

I’ve been pretty consistently positive about this project, I still am. The day it opens will be fantastic…will it be a silver bullet to fix all the traffic issues, no. Will it make things better…absolutely.

My annoyance comes from being told the 3 lanes would be open by Easter which has turned out to be a farcical estimate. I would even be hesitant to believe they will make the new July timeframe. I get that the slow work of the drainage and slip road/merge preparation takes time but once it’s nothing but surfacing left that takes no time at all. The road can go from looking like a bomb site to shiny new pretty fast.

We’re over the hump, the years and years of waiting are long gone.

I’d love to see the introduction of Avg Speed Cameras along the new + old N7 when it’s completed. I’ve seen many a comment on here stating a 3rd lane is only a temporary fix but I disagree, driver behavior accounts for much of traffic woes. Speeding, braking, lane swapping…all to make up mere metres yet causes needless tailbacks.

Sam Russell

SoupyNorman wrote: »

I’d love to see the introduction of Avg Speed Cameras along the new + old N7 when it’s completed. I’ve seen many a comment on here stating a 3rd lane is only a temporary fix but I disagree, driver behavior accounts for much of traffic woes. Speeding, braking, lane swapping…all to make up mere metres yet causes needless tailbacks.

Anytime I have seen them in operation in the UK on motorways, the whole traffic stream travels at the advised speed limit, with no lane hopping. It is obviously safer.

It needs to be installed on the whole of the M50 (not just the tunnel) and all routes into Dublin. It would cut down on accidents, speeding, and increase throughput, and possibly stop bunching. It would also increase the use of the left hand lane.

Altogether, it would be win win win.

_Kaiser_

Sam Russell wrote: »

Anytime I have seen them in operation in the UK on motorways, the whole traffic stream travels at the advised speed limit, with no lane hopping. It is obviously safer.

It needs to be installed on the whole of the M50 (not just the tunnel) and all routes into Dublin. It would cut down on accidents, speeding, and increase throughput, and possibly stop bunching. It would also increase the use of the left hand lane.

Altogether, it would be win win win.

Nope. Considering most drivers can't even do the 120 when there's no reason not to, average speed cameras would only slow things down even more - you see that with the existing camera vans or the odd time a squad car appears. People already within the limit slow even more.

A better standard of driver education and training is needed as well as seeing AGS actually out of their stations and enforcing more than speed or tax checks, not another cynical means of getting more cash from motorists which is all this would be (how are these cameras going to stop lane-hopping? If anything it'll increase it! My experience is that cars travelling at approx the same speeds mean more likelihood of unannounced moves between them).

Avg speed cameras are another symptom of the obsession with "speeding". It's not speed that kills, it's INAPPROPRIATE speed, and it's a smaller fraction of a much wider range of issues on our roads which they'll do nothing to address.

SoupyNorman

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Nope. Considering most drivers can't even do the 120 when there's no reason not to, average speed cameras would only slow things down even more - you see that with the existing camera vans or the odd time a squad car appears. People already within the limit slow even more.

A better standard of driver education and training is needed as well as seeing AGS actually out of their stations and enforcing more than speed or tax checks, not another cynical means of getting more cash from motorists which is all this would be (how are these cameras going to stop lane-hopping? If anything it'll increase it! My experience is that cars travelling at approx the same speeds mean more likelihood of unannounced moves between them).

Avg speed cameras are another symptom of the obsession with "speeding". It's not speed that kills, it's INAPPROPRIATE speed, and it's a smaller fraction of a much wider range of issues on our roads which they'll do nothing to address.

Isnt it amazing how few accidents we hear about in the Port Tunnel these days, I wonder what led to that?

In any event, the main thrust of my argument was not to curb speeding. I agree that continuous driver education is the real answer but let us agree that such a system will never be implemented so hows about we mount a few cameras instead.

Remove the ability for drivers to cheat the system and the compliance rate shoots up. Look at the 60kph limit, before they brought in the Speed Vans people were blowing up the roadworks at breakneck speed and going through the barriers. Everyday now the majority now just stick to 60 as it’s out of their control.

Avg Speed cameras would absolutely change driver behavior, they speed they get caught no question. Result being that on a congested but moving N7 everyone drives more consistently hence less ribbon braking, phantom jams. Rolling along at 60 is faster than 100 to stop and repeat.

Sam Russell

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Nope. Considering most drivers can't even do the 120 when there's no reason not to, average speed cameras would only slow things down even more - you see that with the existing camera vans or the odd time a squad car appears. People already within the limit slow even more.

A better standard of driver education and training is needed as well as seeing AGS actually out of their stations and enforcing more than speed or tax checks, not another cynical means of getting more cash from motorists which is all this would be (how are these cameras going to stop lane-hopping? If anything it'll increase it! My experience is that cars travelling at approx the same speeds mean more likelihood of unannounced moves between them).

Avg speed cameras are another symptom of the obsession with "speeding". It's not speed that kills, it's INAPPROPRIATE speed, and it's a smaller fraction of a much wider range of issues on our roads which they'll do nothing to address.

Average speed cameras are not there to prevent drivers travelling at or below the speed limit. They would be combined with variable speed limit signs that give the speed limit (adjusted for volume of traffic) and then check for compliance. They could also check for Tax, ins, and NCT at the same time.

Anywhere I have seen them deployed in the UK, there has been 100% compliance. Traffic flows steadily and without hassle.

Now the N7/M7 suffers from huge volume at busy times that exceeds the capacity of the road. If the volume vs capacity suggests a limit of say 80 km/h, then if everyone does that, there will be no delays. Everyone benefits.

I believe some research in Washington DC suggested that maximum throughput on one of their busy roads was at 27 mph - now that is better than
a quick rush and then being in a full stop.

Aontachtoir

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Avg speed cameras are another symptom of the obsession with "speeding". It's not speed that kills, it's INAPPROPRIATE speed, and it's a smaller fraction of a much wider range of issues on our roads which they'll do nothing to address.

Distinguishing between speed and inappropriate speed is exactly what the average speed camera is for. I don't think anyone has claimed that sticking up a few ASCs will solve the entire range of issues that our roads face. However, UK experience shows they will do a good job of tackling inappropriate speed.

prunudo

Sam Russell wrote: »

Anytime I have seen them in operation in the UK on motorways, the whole traffic stream travels at the advised speed limit, with no lane hopping. It is obviously safer.

It needs to be installed on the whole of the M50 (not just the tunnel) and all routes into Dublin. It would cut down on accidents, speeding, and increase throughput, and possibly stop bunching. It would also increase the use of the left hand lane.

Altogether, it would be win win win.

I would go one further and say that variable speed limits should be added with average speed cameras and rolled out on the national road approaches to the city. I'm convinced it would help the traffic flows during commuting hours and make the driving experience less stressful.

Kevtherev1

We are one week out until the end of May 2019. We where told by end of may Junction 9A and 3 lanes be opened to Junction 10 Naas South. So any news of that actually happening for next Friday 31st or just more BS.

MaceFace

Kevtherev1 wrote: »

We are one week out until the end of May 2019. We where told by end of may Junction 9A and 3 lanes be opened to Junction 10 Naas South. So any news of that actually happening for next Friday 31st or just more BS.

Who said that?

[Deleted User]

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Do you?

No, what's your point? I posted 6 or 9 months ago pointing out that major projects in other countries frequently estimate non-direct(i.e. not borne directly & immediately by the government) economic/social costs when doing project CBAs, but that that doesn't seem to be done here when it absolutely should

Cookiemunster wrote: »

There isn't an endless pot of money. If you want to the road built more quickly, you need to pay more. That money wasn't available when the project went to tender. That's not defending the project, it's simple logic. You also call the poster a spoofer, but what knowledge of civil engineering do you have?

There isn't an endless pot of money is a stupid reductive argument, what's necessarily wrong with paying more, and who said money wasn't available(EIB was actively soliciting long-term infrastructural projects to apply for loans around that time, but don't let facts get in the way of a silly post)?

There's nothing logical about your post, proven by the fact you think one needs to understand civil engineering to understand fairly elementary economics.

Last Stop wrote: »

With a background in civil engineering, I can tell you that the time-cost-scope triangle is an equilateral triangle meaning if you change one side you effect the others.

That's amazing, your background in civil engineering means you can tell me that a common trade-off triangle results in trade-offs. How many years of civil engineering did it take you to learn that?

This means that decreasing the time increases the cost as the scope for the job is fixed.

That's self evident, thanks though.

Not being involved in the job, I can’t say specifically it’s been optimised but TII have a good track record on this and it looks like it will be completed on time if not before Jan 2020.

So you were spoofing?

Because you said "Potentially yes but a simple understanding of the Time-Cost-Scope triangle suggests this is the best balance between time and costs." and now you're saying you think the TII have a good track record on getting this right but you have no evidence for this. That's vastly different and I'll ask the same question but this time about the TII: can you please provide any evidence as to TII consistently balancing time/cost/scope while factoring in indirect costs and externalities?

TII are essentially in a no win situation here. If it was done quicker, people (including yourself no doubt) would be morning about the cost!

No I wouldn't be, I've been consistent in my arguments, not claimed expert or insider knowledge, and not made specious claims about what other people might argue.

FWIW widening a road will if anything increase congestion and there is no direct economic cost of congestion; it’s an indirect cost.

I've already posted before about induced demand on this thread, but again thanks for telling me obvious concepts that I already know. Congestion has both a direct and indirect cost e.g. this study

If anyone is a spoofer on this it’s you, unless you can point to experience in this area instead of simply moaning and calling out anyone who defends the project.

Why do I need experience in this area to point out that you're being intentionally misleading at best?

You initially claimed that this project is "the best balance between time and costs". You then said you don't know this, but you trust that the TII knows this. That's fairly obviously being misleading.

The reason I'm not interested in posting whatever my credentials may be is because this thread is filled with people posting supposed credentials and then making disgracefully ill-informed posts while shamefully ill-informed posters make "ooooooh" noises. It's a bloody travesty, judge an argument on its merits not on an anonymous persons tangential claims to expert knowledge.

"I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER AND I KNOW WHAT A TRADE-OFF TRIANGLE IS PLEASE DON'T ASK ME FOR ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MY CLAIMS"

Mrs Dempsey

Deleted User wrote: »

..........."I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER AND I KNOW WHAT A TRADE-OFF TRIANGLE IS PLEASE DON'T ASK ME FOR ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MY CLAIMS"

An Engineer I could accept - the other bit is less credible.

NedNew2

Could you not pm the poster instead?

The public aggressive challenges of posters opinions really needs to stop. It's ruining it for everyone. There is no obligation to provide any evidence, documentation or proof. This is not a court case and such arguments stifle valuable contributions, whether they are fully accurate or not.