regedit wrote: » Re the speed at present, if you're doing 100 km an hour, trucks are al overtaking you so 120 km/h seems to be the norm.
regedit wrote: » I seem to get the impression that a pompous small group of elitist posters in this forum seem to be suggesting (inferring) that they are self-entitled to positioning themselves as either 'architects' or 'engineers' and if anyone challenges any aspect of the poor project management of this road widening project, they come up asking for credentials, expertise etc. Is it not easier for these to move on if you don't agree with someone's comment or to post their comments in dedicated architecture and construction forums?
Last Stop wrote: » It’s more to do with the fact that people come on here complaining about various aspects of the job without any appreciation of the work involved or an understanding of how these jobs work. It’s infuriating to see people make suggestions such as late fees or night works as if someone hasn’t already thought of it and either ruled it out for a variety of reasons or applied it to the job (as is the case with late fees). This latest debate centered around the suggestion that the bridge is designed to be narrow to deter trucks or that it’s narrow because the brand new bridge is tiny. Previous to that a comment was made that the road is perfectly capable of doing 120kmph with nothing to back it up when the design drawings show below standard lane widths. I’d have no issue with someone coming on here and pointing out a genuine flaw or poor project management but that hasn’t been the case. Moaning about these kind of aspects instead of focusing on the scale of the project that has been delivered leaves a sour taste.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » I'm suggesting that releasing slow mo drone shots with lots of self congratulating text overlays and people standing around in spotless hi-viz looking busy set to some generic music is a bit much when they can't even handle effective communication with their current stakeholders, have let this project drag on far longer than it needed to given the importance of this route (although the Government are as much to blame for that one), and unnecessarily caused massive traffic delays by sectioning off several km of road and then doing nothing for months. And absolutely does anyone who uses that road and who has been impacted by all this have a right to call these things out and be dissatisfied.. The hours and productivity lost over the last few years because of these decisions must be huge, not to mention of course that as taxpayers we're all paying for this. I don't give a toss about the company involved or it's next job. I care about effective delivery of this one. Next time? I'd expect to see round the clock and weekend operations as much as possible (accepting that some tasks can't be done at night) , lane restrictions only when needed, and both an early completion bonus AND penalties for any delays. This "ah shure it'll be grand" approach when it comes to vital infrastructure needs to end.
Last Stop wrote: » I also fail to see how a company promoting itself completing a multi-million euro job in a bid to win other work can be used as propaganda against it. You’re hardly suggesting that the drone footage (which has been praised on other projects) delayed the construction?
_Kaiser_ wrote: » I do love how some here seem to get almost personally offended when questions are raised around some of the decisions made or the way this project has been run. This elitist and dismissive "where's your qualifications then" attitude doesn't take away from the fact that significant elements of this project could have been far better managed - the communications around finishing dates for example, or the decision to restrict the entire length of works from the start - and then leave 50% of it idle for months on end causing unnecessary traffic issues, or releasing ill-judged PR puff pieces with drone shots and "bigging up" their team's expertise in the midst of all this. Bottom line here is that there are certainly lessons to be learned from how this project was handled.. from inception through the actual works through delivery. Whether those lessons WILL be learned however is a different matter!
Darc19 wrote: » There seems to be a lot of bridge building experts here now. Siac / colas should have just handed the project over to the boards specialists at the beginning.
theguzman wrote: » The temporary speed limit of 60km/h has since been raised to 80km/h, when this is finished (hopefully soon) will the Motorway (M7 mainline) revert to 120km/h?
BuzzFish wrote: » The bridge is standard width. What's your source for it being "tiny"? Far more likely is that the lanes are narrow for traffic calming reasons. It is wide enough for trucks, busses etc. It'll just lack much extra room. I wonder if they considered a cycle lane as there will be housing development along the bypass before long.
beertons wrote: » Id say that never even crossed their minds. Roads are relative to the size of the bridge, which is tiny.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » ^^ Had a closer look the other day myself and it does look very (and unnecessarily) narrow and tight. Is the intent to stop trucks using it or something?
Tomrota wrote: » I think they mean school as in college which hugely affects the N7, no?
Last Stop wrote: » Lanes will be 3.5m wide based on the cross section proposed which is narrower that the standard 3.65m but the same as M50 (amazing people advocating an additional lane miss that point) so it could end up 100kmph. Don’t know what the M1 lanes are. Personally I think that 100kmph would be safer and given the fact that it’s only 12km the time saving would be a massive 1.2 minutes.
ongarboy wrote: » Are kids from Kildare being driven to schools in Dublin, hence the upswing? They'll face long enough commutes when they reach working age, why subject them to gruelling twice daily long distance trips at such a young age also?
benny79 wrote: » Have to say since the schools are back the traffic into Dublin is shocking! tail backs to exit 6/7 every morning and worse is I cant see this been fixed!
Charles Babbage wrote: » it will be no different than the 120Kmh M1.
pad199207 wrote: » Personally I don’t think it should. Since the road has been widened it has a more Urban or M50 feel and look to it. 100KMH would suffice. 120KMH then after the M9 split as it’s more rural after that.
