N25 Bypass - Any Pics?

Amtmann · 19-01-2009 11:41pm

When are we realistically looking at an opening? I presume the scheme is ahead of schedule; am I correct?

Also, can someone take a picture of the Suir Bridge under construction and upload it to the wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suir_Bridge

Bards · 20-01-2009 9:26am

Furet wrote: »

When are we realistically looking at an opening? I presume the scheme is ahead of schedule; am I correct?

Also, can someone take a picture of the Suir Bridge under construction and upload it to the wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suir_Bridge

Aug/Sep of this year

Pics can be found on the site below
http://www.upthedeise.com/waterfordmessageboard/viewtopic.php?t=101&start=630

Sully · 21-01-2009 1:25am

Bards wrote: »

Aug/Sep of this year

Pics can be found on the site below
http://www.upthedeise.com/waterfordmessageboard/viewtopic.php?t=101&start=630

We should kick start the old thread on pics of Waterford for those who dont read UTD. Looking at those pics, the road seem kinda tight?

Road-Hog · 21-01-2009 12:20pm

Furet wrote: »

When are we realistically looking at an opening? I presume the scheme is ahead of schedule; am I correct?

Also, can someone take a picture of the Suir Bridge under construction and upload it to the wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suir_Bridge

Its amazing how all road projects are now finishing 'ahead of schedule', it may have something to do with the generous 'construction period' included in the contract, which in the case of the Waterford Bypass is something close to 4.5 years (that is going on the date of commencement of construction of May 2006 to Autumn 2010 as stated on those awful 'Maze Type' NRA bill boards.) So if it the bypass is opens to traffic this August/Sept expect to hear and see statements about the project opening a year ahead of schedule........

Road-Hog · 21-01-2009 12:25pm

Sully wrote: »

We should kick start the old thread on pics of Waterford for those who dont read UTD. Looking at those pics, the road seem kinda tight?

What exactly do you mean by 'kinda tight'? Too narrow? As far as I know its a standard dual carriage way with hard shoulders.........

JohnC. · 21-01-2009 4:39pm

They can look deceptively narrow when they are empty and unlined. I thought the stretch from Sallypark up by the back of Bolands looked narrow too before it opened (or half of it opened), but it's actually fine.

Amtmann · 24-01-2009 7:32pm

Bards wrote: »

Aug/Sep of this year

Pics can be found on the site below
http://www.upthedeise.com/waterfordmessageboard/viewtopic.php?t=101&start=630

Thanks for that Bards. Fine looking road. It's a real shame though that it won't open as a motorway in my opinion. There'll be all sorts of mis-matched traffic on it, and there'll undoubtedly be a plethora of inappropriate developments built eventually.

Bards · 24-01-2009 7:38pm

Furet wrote: »

Thanks for that Bards. Fine looking road. It's a real shame though that it won't open as a motorway in my opinion. There'll be all sorts of mis-matched traffic on it, and there'll undoubtedly be a plethora of inappropriate developments built eventually.

Very short sighted indeed, but that's what you get when this short road passes through three local authority areas, and they all want a "Piece of action"

Sully · 29-01-2009 2:20am

Might be interested to know this is planned to be opened sometime this year as are other parts of the Waterford - Dublin motorway.

156 km of new roads will be completed in 2009. The projects are; N4 Leixlip to M50 Junction; N6 Athlone to Ballinasloe; N7 Nenagh to Limerick; N8 Fermoy to Mitchelstown; N9 Waterford to Knocktopher; N9 Kilcullen to Carlow, N51 Navan Inner Relief Road and the N25 Waterford City By Pass

Source: http://www.nra.ie/News/PressReleases/htmltext,15949,en.html

More discussion on this over in the Infrastructure forum.

Mossy Monk · 29-01-2009 3:07am

I wonder if the Kilmeaden bypass will be open this year. It will be a god send.

Bards · 29-01-2009 9:34am

Mossy Monk wrote: »

I wonder if the Kilmeaden bypass will be open this year. It will be a god send.

Kilmeaden is being bypassed as part of the Waterford City Bypass and is not a bypass in its own right, so the answer to your question is Yes

fricatus · 29-01-2009 2:21pm

Bards wrote: »

Kilmeaden is being bypassed as part of the Waterford City Bypass and is not a bypass in its own right, so the answer to your question is Yes

Did I not hear a rumour though, that the bypass is due to open from Carriganore to Slieverue initially? (Carriganore is the junction where the ORR up past B&Q will meet up with the bypass)

That would mean that traffic from Dungarvan and Cork would continue through Kilmeaden, make a left at B&Q and then join the bypass up at Carriganore?

Bards · 29-01-2009 3:15pm

AFAIK there will be no stage opening of the Bypass.

wellbutty · 04-02-2009 1:27pm

The roads will all be done before the Suir bridge is complete so it'll be Kilmeaden to Carriganore and Sallypark to Slieverue for a few months until the bridge is ready

Jambo · 04-02-2009 4:38pm

Here is a few pics I managed to get today , as you can see the Bridge seems to be progressing well .

AdMMM · 04-02-2009 5:26pm

It's turning into be some ugly ****er!

Amtmann · 05-02-2009 2:06pm

I'd hate to be the guy who operates that crane!

It does seem rather grey. How did the Boyne Bridge look while it was under construction?

Bards · 05-02-2009 2:26pm

Furet wrote: »

I'd hate to be the guy who operates that crane!

It does seem rather grey. How did the Boyne Bridge look while it was under construction?

see below

http://www.dormanlongtechnology.com/English/projects/Boyne.htm

http://www.steelconstruction.org/static/assets/source/112-Feature-BoyneBridge.pdf

For Anyone interested. these is a good article in December's Engineer Ireland about the Suir Bridge

http://www.engineersireland.ie/uploads/Files/EngineeringMagazines/%7B653DCDD5109744E29557F991DAEC6EA1%7D_CABLE%20BRIDGE.PDF

Amtmann · 05-02-2009 3:25pm

I imagine the bridge looks dreary because of the grey weather conditions and because, perhaps, the concrete is not totally dry yet.

Also, when lighting is installed the bridge will appear quite nice by night. I guess.

wellbutty · 15-02-2009 6:04pm

The last attached photo is taken from the very end of the bridge!

meldrew · 15-02-2009 7:33pm

Great pics , that aul red iron looks cat surely there must be plans to demolish it when the bridge is finished , it totally ruins the view from the bridge

Lennoxschips · 16-02-2009 12:35am

The bit that is now temporary held up with pillars, why wasn't that done permanently with pillars? I'm taking it's because the tower wouldn't balance otherwise?

The whole thing seems to be a bit of overkill as usual.

mike65 · 16-02-2009 12:49am

Its art!

Road-Hog · 16-02-2009 1:53pm

Lennoxschips wrote: »

The bit that is now temporary held up with pillars, why wasn't that done permanently with pillars? I'm taking it's because the tower wouldn't balance otherwise?

The whole thing seems to be a bit of overkill as usual.

Not sure what you mean there Lennoxchips, but from good sources, there are a number of additional (auxillary) pillars to be constructed yet and a couple of more in the river channel also. As for overkill, again not sure what you mean, maybe you can elaborate when you get a chance?

serfboard · 16-02-2009 6:49pm

Furet wrote: »

I'd hate to be the guy who operates that crane!

Was just thinking the same .. sure by the time he gets up there for work in the morning it's time to come back down for his tea break

What does he do when he wants to go to the jacks?

Lennoxschips · 17-02-2009 1:19am

Road-Hog wrote: »

Not sure what you mean there Lennoxchips, but from good sources, there are a number of additional (auxillary) pillars to be constructed yet and a couple of more in the river channel also. As for overkill, again not sure what you mean, maybe you can elaborate when you get a chance?

There are currently temporary pillars (on what looks like land) under the parts where the cables hold up the bridge. So those could have conceivable been permanent pillars as well.

As for overkill, there's picture of another bridge (up or downstream) taken from the deck of the new bridge. It's a causeway. Why couldn't they build a causeway for the new bridge as well? What was the rationale for a massive cable stayed bridge?

Bards · 17-02-2009 1:29am

Lennoxschips wrote: »

There are currently temporary pillars (on what looks like land) under the parts where the cables hold up the bridge. So those could have conceivable been permanent pillars as well.

As for overkill, there's picture of another bridge (up or downstream) taken from the deck of the new bridge. It's a causeway. Why couldn't they build a causeway for the new bridge as well? What was the rationale for a massive cable stayed bridge?

All summed up in the EIS http://www.waterfordcity.ie/n25bypass/files/Environment%20Impact%20Statement%20NTS4.pdf

wellbutty · 17-02-2009 9:43am

and a couple of more in the river channel also

There wont be any pillars in the river!

There are currently temporary pillars (on what looks like land) under the parts where the cables hold up the bridge. So those could have conceivable been permanent pillars as well.

The steel "pillars" that you see at the edge of the land are the stairs for the workers to go between the deck and the compound.

Lennoxschips · 17-02-2009 1:08pm

Nope, I'm referring to the pillars in Image 0312. Those aren't stairs.

Lennoxschips · 17-02-2009 1:15pm

Bards wrote: »

All summed up in the EIS http://www.waterfordcity.ie/n25bypass/files/Environment%20Impact%20Statement%20NTS4.pdf

There's only one paragraph in there about the type of bridge:

Two structural forms were considered for the new River Suir Bridge: a Girder Bridge and a Cable-stayed Bridge. For most of the environmental issues considered in this EIS, the precise nature of the bridge design does not have a significant effect on the potential impacts of the scheme. However, the cable-stayed bridge would have significantly less impact on water quality and fisheries, as there is no requirement for construction of piers in the main river channel. The cable-stayed bridge would also have positive landscape impacts as it would become a feature of the landscape, offsetting the scenic quality against the engineering structure, while the girder bridge designs would have negative or neutral impacts. The girder bridge would have a lower navigation clearance (c. 12 m) compared to the cable-stayed bridge (c. 14 m). The presence of piers in the river channel with the girder bridge may result in the generation of currents and eddies, and these could interfere with navigation. Therefore, for the three environmental issues where the precise nature of the bridge design could have a significant effect of the potential impacts of the scheme, it is clear that the cable-stayed bridge would have less impact compared to the girder bridge designs considered.

"may" result in the generation of eddies, which "could" interfere with navigation... yeah, where's the study into this?

and why do they need 14 m clearance instead of 12 m clearance? what gives?

and where's the cost estimate of the two types of bridges? did they not bother to do this?

Sounds to me like they had their minds made up already. Typical Irish planning.

N25 Bypass - Any Pics?

Comments