Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

M1 New Section of D3 (three lanes) at Swords

24567…36

Comments

  • #32
    Jayuu
    Registered Users Posts: 740 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    I think another point to make here is that since the extention is only to Junction 3 both ways we are talking about at max 4-5km of road in total, which already has room for this expansion.

    This should mean that the cost of this project can't be huge for quite a decent improvement in terms of traffic flow. Its not in the scale of what is involved in building the Galway Bypass which is probably why its being given the go-ahead.

    I'm not getting into the merits or otherwise of the Galway By-Pass. In an ideal world both roads would be built but we're living in far from ideal world.


  • #33
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    I think this is a waste of time to be honest.
    If the scheme isn't going to Lissenhall, then all that's needed is Reducing the M1E-M1N ramp to 1 lane and making the Hard shoulder an Aux lane between the M1/M1 junction and the exit for Holywell, and similarily on the otherside making an Aux lane from the onramp at Holywell to the M1S-M1E junction.

    Having two very short merges from M1E-M1N causes congestion as well as the short enough exit to Holywell. You've to merge in the length of 9 dashed lines or about 50m

    While they're at it, there should be a freeflow M1E-M1N lane instead of the traffic light controlled junction that's there now.

    I see the council have finally copped on a bit at the Lissenhall junction and fixed the traffic lights a bit. Whoopididoo.

    Also there should be a freeflow slip for R132N - M1N to reduce traffic exiting Swords, which causes traffic from the M1N to be delayed on the exit.


  • #34
    celticbest
    Registered Users Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Also there should be a freeflow slip for R132N - M1N to reduce traffic exiting Swords, which causes traffic from the M1N to be delayed on the exit.

    Completely agree with you on this Carawaystick, I have myself posted on this previously, this would also be a simple fix to alleviate traffic at J4 NB.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65141694&postcount=1347


  • #35
    celticbest
    Registered Users Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    Yet again the usual hold-up around J2 NB on the M1, 5:20pm 26.05.10,

    Junction2M1NB270510.jpg

    Any sort of upgrade of this section of the M1 would be great, yes I know that this will probably lead to the section between J3 (Drynan) & J4 (Lissenhall) clogging up, but it's worth seeing what happens. This section can always be upgraded in the furute if required.

    At least there would be some sort of alleviation of traffic around Junctions 1 & 2 on the M1 NB.


  • #36
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Would love to see that airport junction fixed too, its so weak...


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Jayuu
    Registered Users Posts: 740 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    D.L.R. wrote: »
    Would love to see that airport junction fixed too, its so weak...

    Completely agree. The Airport > M1S and M1S > Airport should be converted to free flow in exact same manner as the new M50/M1 freeflows were done. There seems to be enough room at the junction to do that. Then with some remedial work on the roundabout it would be easy to make the Airport > M1N freeflow as well.


  • #38
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    KevR wrote: »
    What part of my post(s) do you consider to be 'through my hat'?
    I take that back, apologies.


  • #39
    Beckett Delicious Computer
    Posts: 0 ✭ Beckett Delicious Computer


    celticbest wrote: »
    This was the traffic around the Airport junction 2 heading NB last night, it was at a standstill as usual.

    [IMG][/img]Junction2M1NB.jpg

    Slightly OT, but was that learner driving unaccompanied on a motorway!
    Typical :rolleyes:


  • #40
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    Aranza Young Beach wrote: »
    Slightly OT, but was that learner driving unaccompanied on a motorway!
    Typical :rolleyes:
    Can you not see the guardian angel shining brightly in the passenger seat?


  • #41
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,719 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Totally off topic, but have you discounted the possibility that it's a shared car, one with a Learner Permit, one with a Driving License, and that it's the driver with the license that took it on the motorway?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Beckett Delicious Computer
    Posts: 0 ✭ Beckett Delicious Computer


    SeanW wrote: »
    Totally off topic, but have you discounted the possibility that it's a shared car, one with a Learner Permit, one with a Driving License, and that it's the driver with the license that took it on the motorway?
    In which case the "L" plate should be removed.

    Driving school cars are exempt!


  • #43
    sdanseo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,233 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Aranza Young Beach wrote: »
    In which case the "L" plate should be removed.

    Driving school cars are exempt!

    This has been done utterly to death in the Learning to Drive forum.

    There is NO requirement for a fully licenced driver to remove L plates on a motorway. Up north, there is.

    Whether or not it makes sense to take them down I dunno, I would argue that it doesn't really, as if you see L-plates on a motorway you make an assumption under the law that the driver is allowed to be there. If they get pulled and they're not, they're screwed, all's fair.


  • #44
    Alun
    Registered Users Posts: 21,412 ✭✭✭✭Alun


    sdonn wrote: »
    There is NO requirement for a fully licenced driver to remove L plates on a motorway. Up north, there is.
    Everywhere, not only on a motorway. If you don't have a law like this, which I believe we should, then what conclusions can any driver draw from the fact the car in front has L plates up, and therefore what on earth is the point of having them at all?


  • #45
    sdanseo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,233 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Personally I live in the real world, and I can tell an early stage learner by their standard and speed of driving, braking 3 miles before a bend, etc....don't really need to see an L-plate ;)

    On a serious note, I take your point - it would be a severe pain taking them down especially as half of them are self adhesive externally applied ones. If the person's driving is up to scratch then it's irrelevant, you give them a bit of space for a minute and you'll know soon enough by their driving that they're either not a learner or are fairly experienced.


  • #46
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    http://www.fiannafail.ie/news/entry/kennedy-says-m1-upgrade-plan-does-not-go-far-enough/
    KENNEDY SAYS M1 UPGRADE PLAN DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH

    Posted on 24/05/10 by Michael Kennedy
    Dublin North T.D. Michael Kennedy has welcomed the public consultation that is taking place in respect of plans to add a third lane to the M1 between the Dublin Airport interchange and the Drinan interchange but has called on the NRA to be more ambitious in its planning.

    “I have been calling, for some time now, for a third lane to be added to the M1 up as far as Balbriggan. The NRA says its current plan is aimed at easing congestion and this will be welcomed by commuters.”

    “However it fails to plan for the traffic volumes that will be experienced arising from the new deepwater port and Business Park planned for Bremore, Balbriggan. Bremore is being designed to have the deepest berths on the east coast with huge capacity for imports and exports.”

    “As a member of the Oireachtas Transport Committee I have seen what happens when adequate provision is not made for the future. I want the NRA to begin planning for the third lane between the Drinan interchange and Dublin Airport to be extended all the way to Balbriggan.”

    “In the meantime I welcome the NRA’s comments that it expects to fully fund its planned development on the M1 this year and hopes construction will begin in August. I understand the project will take approximately 15 months to complete and I hope the impact on traffic in the area can be kept to a minimum during that time,” concluded Deputy Kennedy.


  • #47
    Geogregor
    Registered Users Posts: 397 ✭✭Geogregor


    Where is Drinan? I can't find it on Google maps.


  • #48
    Jayuu
    Registered Users Posts: 740 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    "I understand the project will take approximately 15 months to complete and I hope the impact on traffic in the area can be kept to a minimum during that time"

    Holy Mad Cow! How can it take fifteen months to build what is effectively around 5-6km of extra lanes?


  • #49
    nordydan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,104 ✭✭✭nordydan


    Geogregor wrote: »
    Where is Drinan? I can't find it on Google maps.

    First junction north of Airport


  • #50
    Jayuu
    Registered Users Posts: 740 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    Actually according to Google Maps its around 2.2 km in either direction and that's allowing a little space on either side of the junction.


  • #51
    darkman2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,633 ✭✭✭darkman2


    What they are proposing is an upgrade for a 2km stretch of road. Rediculously short sighted IMO and it won't make a blind bit of difference. Why put up with months of delays just for an extra lane over 2km's?


    Also 15 feckin months for 2 extra 2,000m lanes!? lol. Something not right there.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    celticbest
    Registered Users Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    Scheme : Pictures,

    M1 Lane Improvement Scheme Page 1.pdf


    M1 Lane Improvement Scheme Page 2.pdf


  • #53
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    How bout making the airport junction a proper trumpet while they're at it?


  • #54
    celticbest
    Registered Users Posts: 2,092 ✭✭✭celticbest


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    How bout making the airport junction a proper trumpet while they're at it?

    Not sure they would do anything with this junction as volumes are not big enough to justify any spend on it.

    I use this junction every morning and am never held up, apart from a 30 second wait if you get stopped at the lights.


  • #55
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    How bout making the airport junction a proper trumpet while they're at it?

    Since a trumpet would have been cheaper in the first place, you have to wonder why it is the way it is.


  • #56
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    It looks pretty pathetic, when coming out of our main airport to be greeted by a mickey mouse roundabout with lights on it, it should be freeflow, couldnt be that difficult!


  • #57
    Jayuu
    Registered Users Posts: 740 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    It would be fairly straightforward I would think to make it freeflow from the Airport to M1N. At least they should consider that. As for the rest; well it might be better if it was a full trumpet junction but I too have never really had any delays on this roundabout.

    I think there are better things to spend money on (e.g. extending the three lanes as far as Junction 4).


  • #58
    Empire o de Sun
    Registered Users Posts: 369 ✭✭Empire o de Sun


    would it not be a better idea to have the 3 lane section on the northbound side going one or 200 metres beyond the junction, as this would leave exit 3 as a final layout and there would be no need to replace any overhead gantry.

    The gantry for the airport at exit 2 has been replaced already and if this 3 lane section goes ahead it will be the 3rd version for the gantry at this exit.


  • #59
    Empire o de Sun
    Registered Users Posts: 369 ✭✭Empire o de Sun


    I think there was/is probably plans for local access at the airport exit or a road towards Portmarnock.


  • #60
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    Or perhaps saying "forget this upgrade for now" and put the money into a pot for when the Galway bypass finally clears the courts.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Empire o de Sun
    Registered Users Posts: 369 ✭✭Empire o de Sun


    It doesn't work like that, if money isn't spent the Department of Finance get it. Departments don't keep money they don't spend. This is from my experience. I'm open to correction.


Advertisement