N7 Newlands Cross upgrade

dubhthach

WH BONNEY wrote: »

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

According to the Irish Times and other articles I read post budget this scheme is one of those that's been for all purposes basically cancelled. No doubt they'll come back to it around 2020! :rolleyes:

D.L.R.

ridiculous carry on. putting the likes of the n18 ahead of this. not that that project isn't needed, but for the love of god this is the gateway to the entire southwest we're talking about, on one of ireland's busiest stretches of road.

and its still got a set of feckin traffic lights on it! bah.

Work is currently in progress here?

look to the left of the camera image below.

listermint

Work started about 8 weeks or so back. But will it continue.....

L1011

Work is for a gas pipeline...

listermint

Awe

My understanding is that all projects in progress are safe! the interurban upgrades are considered vital to the future prosperity of the country.

MYOB

MYOB wrote: »

Work is for a gas pipeline...

Is this nothing to do with the newlands junction upgrade?

L1011

I think its needed anyway but enabling works are being done at the same time

Also, Newlands upgrade is needed for Metro West...

From the nra website

N7 Newlands Cross Junction Improvement Scheme
Local Authority: Kildare County Council
Start County: Dublin
End County: Dublin
Description: The scheme involves the construction of a grade separated interchange at the existing at-grade junction between the N7 Naas Road and the R113 Fonthill/Belgard Road at Newlands Cross. The N7 comprising a 3 x 3 lane dual carriageway will be totally free-flow through the junction.
Mainline Length (km): 1.8
Current Project Phase: Tender
Major Inter-urban Route: Yes

Still at the Tender stage

Colm R

Deleted User wrote: »

Work is currently in progress here?

look to the left of the camera image below.

Thats one very high camera!!!

Chris_533976

Deleted User wrote: »

From the nra website


Still at the Tender stage

NRA website is hardly ever accurate for Tender information.

Heroditas

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this nothing to do with the newlands junction upgrade?

Think this new gasline is needed to upgrade the national gas network anyway and it's being placed here so work can take place on the junction.

They could improve that feckin' Belgard Road/N7 junction by improving the orange filter light to get onto the N7. That lighting sequence is a pet hate of mine :mad:

BluntGuy

N7 Newlands Cross Junction Improvement Scheme
Local Authority: Kildare County Council
Start County: Dublin
End County: Dublin
Description: The scheme involves the construction of a grade separated interchange at the existing at-grade junction between the N7 Naas Road and the R113 Fonthill/Belgard Road at Newlands Cross. The N7 comprising a 3 x 3 lane dual carriageway will be totally free-flow through the junction.
Mainline Length (km): 1.8
Current Project Phase: Tender
Major Inter-urban Route: Yes

Bravo! :rolleyes:

I don't mean to sound pedantic or anything, but it feels like they're selling that as if it's an amazing extra feature.

Wouldn't you expect the mainline to be freeflow through a GSJ?

I dunno... maybe it's just me being a bit OTT. :cool:

Oh, and also, I would've strongly recommended they change that to a 4x4 or at least a 4x3 (the four lanes Dublin-bound) carriageway as the traffic levels seem to justify it.

If they don't they may end with the same problems as the Douglas flyover in Cork.

Stan_D

Guys - here is some facts on Newlands Cross (NX) from somebody closely involved...

First off I'm totally bemused that NX is on the chop-list and why has the press not picked up on this (it was only simply reported in the likes of the Irish Times)? So we will have a continuos motorway-standard N7 all the way to the M50, with the NX as is: a bottleneck - nuts! There must be a FF political angle at play here as its not a rational decision.

1) The scheme was granted Planning consent this year for a 6-lane over-bridge/elevated roadway for the N7 with the R113 and slip roads all at-grade. The N7 would be transformed in to a high standard dual carriageway, as befitting the country's primary artery at the point where it connects to the M50 at the Red Cow. An underpass option was considered but was discounted by the NRA on the basis that it would add an extra year to the construction programme and cost more.

2) It was to be a Design & Build contract: final tender bid deadline is coming up shortly. The scheme was due to start on-site in early 2009 and take 2 years to build.

3) The works currently happening are for the gas diversion to facilitate the roadworks: its an advance contract to get the gas main (the main Dublin-Cork feed) out of the way before the main contract starts.

and to reply to older postings...

4) Extensive additional land was CPO'd for temporary diversion roads to allow the scheme to be built and to retain the same number of lanes as existing, so delays should be no more than current. Also the new Outer Ring Road from Kingswood to the N81 will ease traffic at NX.

5) Metro West has been allowed for by the NX scheme: space will be provided under the bridge on the east side of the junction. The RPA are being consulted. Up until Tuesday, the plan was that NX would be built first and then the Metro.

D.L.R.

mysterious wrote: »

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

The Naas Road has already had a few goings-over at this stage. Ah, to do a Sim-City on it! :pac:

It really is the weak link in our motorway system, and it will be even more apparent when the M7/8/9 are completed. It is our equivalent to the northern A1: between motorways, too busy, dangerous, under-spec, and expensive to fix.

The bad planning of the original M50 era really is coming home to roost now. Swathes of west Dublin over-development makes road building hyper-expensive and very tricky.

Ideally the M50 should be directly connected by motorway to Naas. This was the original plan (new M between N7 and N4), but they opted for the cheaper, quicker option with the Naas Road widening. And they didn't even have the decency to upgrade Newlands Cross THEN!

Aren't the authorities expecting national traffic to increase when Ireland actually has a motorway NETWORK, as opposed to a few stretches? I agree this flyover should even be 4 lanes not 3. It will need to be 4 eventually anyway. Look at the Belfast M2 Foreshore - now THAT is planning ahead. And needless to say, they have not had to revisit it for 40 odd years. You know what that is? - value for money.

But this flyover must be built, no doubt about it. And sorry lads, but it should have priority over the Atlantic Corridor.

BluntGuy

Just straying a bit from the Newlands Upgrade... I think the way the NRA could get M all the way from Naas to the M50 is gradually reclassify sections from Naas towards Dublin. That way they could correct any mistakes (LILOs, private accesses) bit by bit.

It may take a while, but it would be much better than current situation...

murphaph

D.L.R. wrote: »

But this flyover must be built, no doubt about it. And sorry lads, but it should have priority over the Atlantic Corridor.

Certainly stretches of the ARC are lower priority than Newlands but the really dangerous bits with high AADT must at least be on a par with it. Newlands is of course of almost national importance given its key location. Dublin cannot be allowed to choke for want of such projects or there'll be no money to send west anyway. The danes don't deny Copenhagen the infrastructure it needs as they understand it's a centralised country, like us.

Chris_533976

Yeah, Im bewildered why this one was on the temporary chop list. Thinking about it its an utterly stupid decision.

They dont want to pull Crusheen - Gort from the west due to the OMG WE ARE THE WEST HOW DARE YOU NOT INVEST IN US culture over here. They pulled Oranmore - Gort for now, and maybe pulling the two would have been political suicide.

But really, money has to be found for Newlands Cross.

L1011

BluntGuy wrote: »

Just straying a bit from the Newlands Upgrade... I think the way the NRA could get M all the way from Naas to the M50 is gradually reclassify sections from Naas towards Dublin. That way they could correct any mistakes (LILOs, private accesses) bit by bit.

It may take a while, but it would be much better than current situation...

Junctions 5 to 7 are far too close together, no matter what they do to remove accesses....

dublinhead

THE POSSIBILITY of moving the proposed upgrade of Dublin's Newlands Cross junction up the list of National Roads Authority (NRA) priorities is to be discussed by the board of the authority next month.

According to todays irish times all is not lost

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/motors/2008/1022/1224454451054.html

mysterious

BluntGuy wrote: »

Just straying a bit from the Newlands Upgrade... I think the way the NRA could get M all the way from Naas to the M50 is gradually reclassify sections from Naas towards Dublin. That way they could correct any mistakes (LILOs, private accesses) bit by bit.

It may take a while, but it would be much better than current situation...

I think you brought this up before


I will say it again, the Naas road reclassification to motorway cannot happen until there is an alternative road the whole way from Naas to Newlands.

End of story. It's not a big issue anyhu.

mysterious

Chris_533976 wrote: »

Yeah, Im bewildered why this one was on the temporary chop list. Thinking about it its an utterly stupid decision.

They dont want to pull Crusheen - Gort from the west due to the OMG WE ARE THE WEST HOW DARE YOU NOT INVEST IN US culture over here. They pulled Oranmore - Gort for now, and maybe pulling the two would have been political suicide.

But really, money has to be found for Newlands Cross.

The money is there, it didn't just dissapear all of a sudden. The government just need to get their finger out.
They cannot just chop the Newlands cross scheme off the list. I'm sorry but I'm not falling for this crap the money is gone, it's bull****, where is the billions that was pumped into the economy over the years. The CPO, plans, approval, land take is already done and is at tender. The money is f**** there. The government, like any other government are up to there old tricks again.


The current upgrade, is pathetic to begin with and very cheapish tbh. My arse this is getting the chop.


The Newlands cross upgrade should at least have 4 lanes each way, traffic at this point is close to 100,000 and is 3 lanes reaches capacity at 92,100 from the design manual provided by the NRA. The current upgrade is not even acceptable.


The newlands cross needs to be fully free flow, at the minute its a cheapish upgrade with only just mainline squeezed over the Belgard road. It's still riddled with lights and has no hard shoulder ffs. If your going to build this junction, do it right.


It's a joke.

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

Junctions 5 to 7 are far too close together, no matter what they do to remove accesses....

They could sort that out by
A. Providing Auxillary lanes 3 lanes + 1 Aux lane (like M50) between the intermediate junctions.
B. also provide a local road from Naas to Newlands cross.


It's not that difficult.

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

They could sort that out by
A. Providing Auxillary lanes 3 lanes + 1 Aux lane (like M50) between the intermediate junctions.
B. also provide a local road from Naas to Newlands cross.


It's not that difficult.

A: would require rebuilding all the junctions - although likely not the overbridges - on the recently grade seperated section as well as either removing the H/S or widening the road bed so much as to require demolishing or permanently closing access to most of the other private access problems... which might not be a bad idea.

B: Would cost lots. Possibly as much as using the damn M7 reserved alignment to the reserved 'J8' on the M50. Which is what was planned to happen, leaving the N7 Nass->RCR as part of the R445 until traffic levels and the Ryder Cup intervened; hence the tripling and grade seperation....

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

A: would require rebuilding all the junctions - although likely not the overbridges - on the recently grade seperated section as well as either removing the H/S or widening the road bed so much as to require demolishing or permanently closing access to most of the other private access problems... which might not be a bad idea.

The 4 new interchanges(in the Naas rd upgrade) will not have to be rebuilt, how on earth did you come up with that, I'd rather you answer this question before I actually tell you it can be done. From what I can see the only interchange that needs real modification is the Kingstown interchange, which has no scope for widening but the median in the centre which is only about 5m in width, therefore only one lane can be added, unless they take out the HS, or use the verges within the left onslips, if you look closely at the verges where the loops are located you will see that there is plenty of width there. The only other interchange that needs actual knocking is the Naas road ball flyover. The latter only need minor modifications.

B: Would cost lots. Possibly as much as using the damn M7 reserved alignment to the reserved 'J8' on the M50. Which is what was planned to happen, leaving the N7 Nass->RCR as part of the R445 until traffic levels and the Ryder Cup intervened; hence the tripling and grade seperation....

A road cost money, there is no disputing that. There is already reservation for the road up to the Steelstown interchange road. I'm not to sure which Lilo interchange of the two, but there is space provided to make way for a 2 lane road to pass under the Steelstown road and onto north alongside the Naas road. It would not cost that much, It really is only a local road that is required, and the lenght is only about 15km roughly to build. The only drawback is extra landtake, but land prices has dropped considerably too.

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

The 4 new interchanges(in the Naas rd upgrade) will not have to be rebuilt, how on earth did you come up with that, I'd rather you answer this question before I actually tell you it can be done. From what I can see the only interchange that needs real modification is the Kingstown interchange, which has no scope for widening but the median in the centre which is only about 5m in width, therefore only one lane can be added, unless they take out the HS, or use the verges within the left onslips, if you look closely at the verges where the loops are located you will see that there is plenty of width there. The only other interchange that needs actual knocking is the Naas road ball flyover. The latter only need minor modifications.

The "turn lanes"/"merge lanes" at J5/J6 at the very least are below width for accomodating a departing auxillary lane. To widen the off lanes would require heavily reconfiguring if not rebuilding the loops - e.g, the entire junctions bar the overbridges. If it was made Motorway with 120km/h limits it would also be lethal to have such sharp exits as J5/J6 has; and a petrol station sitting right at the start of an offramp at J7...

Still doesn't get around the problem that there are sections of the road with three lanes, a non-lane-width H/S and a Jersey barrier as the median. There will still be land take along the entire length to add an aux lane. In places this would cut so close as to make continuing accesses impossible (although this would clearly be the intention anyway) such as at Applegreen (cannot remember the area name here).

Cost of this + cost of building even a standard two R road to carry local traffic would have to be up there with actually finishing the M7. Also, an adjacent R route would be relatively easy through the countryside section, but from J4 inwards there is no adjacent land to build a continuous road on.

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

The "turn lanes"/"merge lanes" at J5/J6 at the very least are below width for accomodating a departing auxillary lane. To widen the off lanes would require heavily reconfiguring if not rebuilding the loops - e.g, the entire junctions bar the overbridges.

Ok none of that makes any sense, first of all, There is land and enough width to widen the existing carriegway between J5/J6.


Go and look again, not gonna explain it again!

Second, there are no loops at this junction, that is at Kingstown only. J6/J6 have lilos and can easily be lifted up and be replaced by onslips.

Third, again telling you, there will be no rebuilding or reconfigering these interchanges, go look at the bridges, before you repeat non facts here again. The new bridges have extra wide verges on the left sides passing under, rather than having a wide media like the M50 had before the upgrade. The bridges are in fact wide enough to have four lanes each way and a HS. If you don't believe me, go look.

If it was made Motorway with 120km/h limits it would also be lethal to have such sharp exits as J5/J6 has; and a petrol station sitting right at the start of an offramp at J7...

If it were upgraded, the lilos would be uplifted and be replaced with onslips. Simple!

Still doesn't get around the problem that there are sections of the road with three lanes, a non-lane-width H/S and a Jersey barrier as the median.

still doesnt get what? what are you rambling about.

There will still be land take along the entire length to add an aux lane. In places this would cut so close as to make continuing accesses impossible (although this would clearly be the intention anyway) such as at Applegreen (cannot remember the area name here).

You make the idea of playing scrabble difficult...

Cost of this + cost of building even a standard two R road to carry local traffic would have to be up there with actually finishing the M7. Also, an adjacent R route would be relatively easy through the countryside section, but from J4 inwards there is no adjacent land to build a continuous road on.

Oh it's impossible:rolleyes:

L1011

Removing the LILOs and building offslips IS rebuilding the interchanges! You have some very strange definition of 'rebuilding'. I specifically said the overbridges would be fine but the actual interchanges would have to be rebuilt.

"still doesn't get what" - read what I said again. There are sections of the road where there are three lanes, no median bar a barrier, and narrow H/S. There is no room here for an additional lane without extensive land take.

Where is there a land corridor from J4 to J1 for even an S2 road?

You've clearly done no more than skim my posts each time, so I'm not even going to bother replying again. Especially if you continue going on about "non facts" where none exist.

Stan_D

From what I've heard, the NRA have "postponed" Newlands Cross upgrade. I don't see it happening this side of 2010. Basically the NRA are only going ahead with schemes that are under contract.