N7 Newlands Cross upgrade

Chris_533976

This is being taken seriously, as a tender has appeared for consultantsy services.

http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/search_show.aspx?ID=JUL089358

Zoney

Excellent. I wonder how it will be done - will the Naas Road be sunk down below the junction, Westlink style?

jrar

Zoney wrote:

Excellent. I wonder how it will be done - will the Naas Road be sunk down below the junction, Westlink style?

I would have thought an underpass would be the neatest solution - there's no shortage of room for same with a nearside lane for "local" traffic taking a left or right turn and traffic on the Belgard-Fonthil axis would enjoy far greater movement as a result.

Given that cities like Paris and Brussels can manage short underpasses at busy junctions right in the middle of their built-up areas, we should at least be able to execute one (fairly quickly I hope !) at a large junction like Newlands X

dmeehan

can you imagine the traffic while the works are being carried out :eek:

murphaph

I'll eat my hat if they don't sink the N7 down, same as the N4 will get at the R120 junction.

McSpud

Sunken underpass is the obvious cost effective & speedy solution which probably means they will pick a longer more expensive option.

LostinBlanch

Unfortunately McSpud I agree with you. It says nothing about you, more about NRA and their failure to do their job properly (thus far). When / if they actually manage to do their job properly then I'll cheer them on.

Victor

Remeber Metro West has to go through also.

Irish and Proud

Victor wrote:

Remeber Metro West has to go through also.

You're right mate - the final selected route for Metro West uses the R113 Belgard and Fonthill roads, so it has to go through Newlands X - hence, not only will the engineers have to avoid cross conflict with the Naas Road, they'll have to do likewise with the R113 in order to keep the metro seperate from heavy traffic (unless the metro is given its own overpass/underpass).

Chris_533976

Dont be silly Of course they'll do the Newlands Cross Upgrade now then dig the whole goddamn lot up again when Metro West comes through

jrar

Chris, the sad thing is that although I suspect you posted your last comment partly tongue in cheek, that everyone on this board knows that somewhat depressingly, you're more than probably right !!

DerekP11

In P11s forthcoming metro west submission to the RPA, we have sought clarification on the Newlands X issue. Looking at the proposed metro west route it is obvious that the grade seperation of this junction is required for the safe and efficient operation of metro west and road traffic. We would like to know, if the planned upgrade of Newlands X is being carried out in conjunction with metro west. A road upgrade must come either first or in conjunction.

spacetweek

There's more info available on this now.

Yes they are trying to decide whether to sink or raise the junction. Worryingly, there's no mention of Metro West. o_O

SDCC info
Consultation (with pretty pictures)
Drawings of the over and underpass options

narommy

spacetweek wrote:

There's more info available on this now.

Yes they are trying to decide whether to sink or raise the junction. Worryingly, there's no mention of Metro West. o_O

SDCC info
Consultation (with pretty pictures)
Drawings of the over and underpass options

They mention mention "Metro West" in this

Brochure

Also see attached -


It is ridiculous though that they are only commencing work on this now with it not completed in 2011................muppets

Victor

Putting the N7 down probably makes most sense, with Metro West Elevated and left / right turns on the level.

The N25 / N27 interchange (Kinslae Road Roundabout) sufffers badly from limited visibility due to a close horizon going up the bridge.

mysterious

Firstly I'm really dissapointed in this cheap fix flyover:mad: . This is Ireland's busiest intersection!

This interchange carries at least 150,000 vehicles a day at the crosspoint. Surely a proper near free flowing fix is needed here.

Secondly the underpass IMO is a bad idea. It's more costly and the construction phase will be much longer and more disruptive than the overpass. The underpass will eliminate any future improvements or widining to the supposedely tight (3+3) sunken layout... The N7 is higher than the belgard road so it seems logical to me that the belgard road is sunken under anyway.

Thirdly... It seems to me they can't even learn from the mistakes of the redcow.. and now the metro might run on the belgard slips.. just like the repetition of the luas aka redcow...:rolleyes:

My Idea....

1. The overpass gets the go ahead.
2. Mainline should be at least 3+3 with HS or 4+4 mainline (given the fact that the current traffic requires four lanes anyway).
3. In the southwest quadrant of the interchange a Free flowing loop coming from the city onto the belgard road merging to allow N7 traffic get to the Clondalkin NB road without facing lights or a possible metro. also free flowing links from Clondalkin EB to N7 city direction.
4. The Redcow - Newlands section will carry the heaviest of both local and long distance traffic than any other part of the N7, both should be entirely separted and running alongside parrelell, with mainline four lanes each to facilitate the weaving movements from all the exits between to and from the Newlands - redcow road.

Those four points I've stated are minimal requirements if the N7 road already carries close to 100,000. So If my memory serves me right, 92,500 is the capacity of 3+3 lane carrigeway. Therefore in the year opening the capacity of the road is almost full.

Anyway thats my thoughts:p

Fratton Fred

When the M50 is complete and the new N7 - N81 road from Kingswood, surely Newlands cross will be a lot quieter and a straightforward two lane flyover on the N7 with a roundabout underneath (similar to the A40 heading into london if anyone knows it) should suffice.

logic would say that the metro would go underneath the whole lot, but logic and the RPA aren't usually two things that go hand in hand.

mysterious

Fratton Fred wrote:

When the M50 is complete and the new N7 - N81 road from Kingswood, surely Newlands cross will be a lot quieter and a straightforward two lane flyover on the N7 with a roundabout underneath (similar to the A40 heading into london if anyone knows it) should suffice.

logic would say that the metro would go underneath the whole lot, but logic and the RPA aren't usually two things that go hand in hand.

This road is at a total standstill pretty much from 8.00am to 6.00pm every single day. Even still, you have thousands of cars already avoiding the N7 as it is!

As a result. the extra traffic will come at much greater numbers and speed that in the near future when all the local upgrades and interurbans are done "2010", I can even see tailbacks reoccuring here. There are still to many LILOS and Private accesses onto this road. It will still lead to problems.

3+3 from Newlands to Redcow is just not enough even with the new ORR...I just don't think the ORR will have any effect whatsoever.



It just not acceptable that the NRA are building roads like this to standards of only traffic levels of today needs and not of future needs.
E.g. leaving room for widening if needed in years to come. It still come's back to the old Irish attitude "ah sure it will do"

Get this road done right first time around, instead of wasting more tax payers money getting it right the third time around.

Victor

Might it be useful to treat the M50, Monastery Road and Belgard Road junctions as a single junction and not having weaving traffic?

Happy Bertie

While I've only passed with N7 and Newland Cross intersection a few times, I'm trying to understand why they are keeping the Fronthill/Belgard road at the same altitude (level). My suggestion is if they choose the N7 going under option, then raise the Fronthill/Belgard road by say 4 meters, that would in effect mean the N7 is sunk 5 meters below average terrain instead of 9 meters (this would reduce the time digging into rock and reduce drainage pump requirements, and also improve sight distances). Or, conversely, with the N7 going over option, lower the Fronthill/Belgard road by say 4 meters instead of keeping it at its current altitude (level), thus reducing the hump effect (reduced sight distances).

The way it's presented in the Brochure is almost as if the Fronthill/Belgard road's level cannot change (as if it's the higher priority) and the N7 has to subsume to this requirement.

Does someone who has local knowledge of the site/levels know if this compromise "N7 going under option" I suggested is feasible?

Victor

Engineers hate stuff like that.

It is possible, but it means different (possibly more) disruption during construction.

mysterious

This section of road is a mess and just simply raising the mainline is just not going to solve the traffic problems that currently plagues this road

1. to many LILOs and private accesses

2. The unacceptable unplanned sprawl adjacent to the N7 for the last 20 years limits any proper infastructure to be improved or expanded on the verges.

3. The three proposed interchanges (half baked jobs) all within one kilometre! they are too close and don't work together and faciltate proper movements between them. It will lead to confusion dangerous weaving and total chaos!

4. Now a metro will interfere with traffic at the new Newlands interchange.

5. No Alternate route for local traffic and weaving traffic.

6. the traffic levels is already chronic and the new road will be outdated after the "cheap upgrade"

7. Finally Dublin South county council,

want to build high density/commercial outlets and high rise buildings at either side of this landmark N7 road.. Now the new thing to say by the developers "Everything is now 2 minutes from the N7" what happens pretty much traffic mayhem..... Like the M50 was called 10 years ago

A bunch of morons run this country

mysterious

Victor wrote:

Engineers hate stuff like that.

It is possible, but it means different (possibly more) disruption during construction.

It just not possible to get anything right in this country:D

Remember they have being planning this road for the last 30 years Victor!!!

murphaph

Victor wrote:

Might it be useful to treat the M50, Monastery Road and Belgard Road junctions as a single junction and not having weaving traffic?

Yes, probably.

Chris_533976

Whats interesting about the brochure is that the road is called the M7 the whole way to the M50.

Plans for reclassification?

murphaph

Chris_533976 wrote:

Whats interesting about the brochure is that the road is called the M7 the whole way to the M50.

Plans for reclassification?

or laziness by whoever cobbled it together. I'd like the N7 reclassified but there's no acceptable alternative route from the M50 to near Kill. They should have really extended the parallel access roads built as part of the last upgrade all the way to Rathcoole at least and designate the N7 as M7 from there to Naas.

Victor

This has gone to public consultation now. Notices in yesterday's papers.

Chris_533976

They're really fast tracking this which is good, its gonna be a dreadful bottleneck once the M50 works are done.

icdg

Saw the CPO/EIS notices in yesterday's newspapers. But why are Kildare County Council running this project? Tis nowhere near the county boundary...

murphaph

icdg wrote: »

Saw the CPO/EIS notices in yesterday's newspapers. But why are Kildare County Council running this project? Tis nowhere near the county boundary...

The National Roads Design Office for this part of the country is in Naas. They are probably running it from there.

WH BONNEY

I heard a rumour that this project was deferred in the budget. Can anybody shed any light on this ?