M50 upgrade - Phase II

Heroditas

Stekelly wrote: »

There was a camera just after Tallaght northbound for a long time during the works.

Yeah that's right. It had been there since that stretch opened.

Stekelly wrote: »

It's the stupid drivers you want to be venting at there.

I'll raise a glass to that!

Tragedy

I wish it became 120km/h southbound at Dundrum slip road.

I know it's childish, but it would be so fun to accelerate from 100 -> 120 going down the swooping hill.

Look forward to the M7 everytime I'm driving the N7 because I still get childish glee from that first 500m of it.

PS: GoSafe is Egis(a project management company), Spectra(a photo company) and some weird named company. Seem to be operating and recruiting for Listowel in Kerry.

KevR

Why does the M50 need speed cameras? Are there no schools in Dublin?

What the M50 needs is Gardai patrolling to catch people hogging lanes 2 or 3 (this causes dangerous undertaking on the left), people who change lanes dangerously, people who tailgate......amongst other offences which are far more serious than people creeping a bit over the limit on a 3/4 lane motorway.

Seth Brundle

KevR wrote: »

Why does the M50 need speed cameras? Are there no schools in Dublin?

Do you really need to ask?

whosedaddy?

KevR wrote: »

What the M50 needs is Gardai patrolling to catch people hogging lanes 2 or 3 (this causes dangerous undertaking on the left), people who change lanes dangerously, people who tailgate......amongst other offences which are far more serious than people creeping a bit over the limit on a 3/4 lane motorway.

I know who is in the latter category....

bigbadbear

There is a time and a place for everything and motorways are the place where you should not be limited to ANY speed limit. I personally don't care whether it is 100km/h or 120km/h I'll just speed anyway. I lived in germany and the Autobahn was fantastic

Can somebody explain to me why there should be a speed limit?

People will say....

"You cant handle a car at that speed"
I can and its surprisingly not that difficult.

"You'll get a blow out"
Well maintained tyres should not blow out. Why isn't the autobahn littered with crashed cars if this was the case?

"The road is not good enough"
The M50 is one of the better finished roads I have seen

"It's an urban motorway"
What does that even mean?

I would vote in favour of a reduction in speed limit in around housing estates to 30/40 km/h where children could run out in front of the car but I genuinely don't understand the logic of slowing people down on a good stretch of motorway.

whosedaddy?

from m50.ie

new N2 layout.

http://m50.ie/uploads/images/New%20Layout%20of%20N2%20Ashbourne-Finglas%20Interchange.pdf

mind you it still doesn't show flyovers for the freeflow movements...also lane allocations are guesswork.

darkman2

So then it has not been changed?

whosedaddy?

correct.... looks exactly like the photomontage....

MagicMarker

bigbadbear wrote: »

There is a time and a place for everything and motorways are the place where you should not be limited to ANY speed limit. I personally don't care whether it is 100km/h or 120km/h I'll just speed anyway. I lived in germany and the Autobahn was fantastic

Can somebody explain to me why there should be a speed limit?

People will say....

"You cant handle a car at that speed"
I can and its surprisingly not that difficult.

"You'll get a blow out"
Well maintained tyres should not blow out. Why isn't the autobahn littered with crashed cars if this was the case?

"The road is not good enough"
The M50 is one of the better finished roads I have seen

"It's an urban motorway"
What does that even mean?

I would vote in favour of a reduction in speed limit in around housing estates to 30/40 km/h where children could run out in front of the car but I genuinely don't understand the logic of slowing people down on a good stretch of motorway.

No speed limit? In Ireland?

80% of people on the motorway are unaware of what lane they should be in, introducing something like this would be retarded. It would be decades before we could even consider it.

Irish and Proud

KevR wrote: »

Why does the M50 need speed cameras? Are there no schools in Dublin?

What the M50 needs is Gardai patrolling to catch people hogging lanes 2 or 3 (this causes dangerous undertaking on the left), people who change lanes dangerously, people who tailgate......amongst other offences which are far more serious than people creeping a bit over the limit on a 3/4 lane motorway.

...it's not speed cameras we need on the M50, we need enforcement cameras/sensors recording speed, lane discipline (or lack thereof), distancing etc over the length of the entire M50. There should also be an electronic traffic control system (similar to Glasgow's M8) - most M50 gantries seem to have provision for such a system. Also, it's a good idea to prescribe a lower speed for a complex urban motorway - the junctions will have a better chance to work properly then.

Regards!

Irish and Proud

darkman2 wrote: »

So then it has not been changed?

...had seen the N2 junction from the M50 and I can tell you that it's not what I saw - I saw ramped approaches on the line of the N2 to M50 crossovers (shown as at-grade on the map) - the map seems to be clearly out-dated - can't understand why that design even made it to paper - what they seem to be actually building makes far more sense!

Regards!

Seth Brundle

Irish and Proud wrote: »

we need enforcement cameras/sensors recording speed,

SPECS? I'd be surprised if it wasn't introduced in the coming months - its an obvious place to install it.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

lane discipline (or lack thereof),

How can cameras accurately record this and not mistake it for someone who actually overtook on the motorway?

Irish and Proud wrote: »

distancing etc over the length of the entire M50.

What if someone pulls right in front of you?
Also, a driver in front may be constantly slowing down or braking reducing your stopping distance. While you may be able to react, a camera, may catch you before you get time to react.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Also, it's a good idea to prescribe a lower speed for a complex urban motorway - the junctions will have a better chance to work properly then.

Lower speeds apparently carry more traffic but surely there should be room to increase the speed rating at off peak hours


Anyhow, they can't get the BFT system done properly, wait until we see electronic policing along the M50!

dcr22B

Are they ever going to open the inside lane from the M1/Airport interchange to the M1/M50 freeflow section?

The traffic is backed up to Lissenhall every weekday morning as a result of this and it's getting frustrating at this stage.

amacachi

dcr22B wrote: »

Are they ever going to open the inside lane from the M1/Airport interchange to the M1/M50 freeflow section?

The traffic is backed up to Lissenhall every weekday morning as a result of this and it's getting frustrating at this stage.

The traffic at Lissenhall is caused by the junction at Lissenhall. It's more or less the last pinch point now and until there's a lane added/lane gain it's going to stay like that, the volume of traffic joiking the M1 Southbound in the morning is too high.

dcr22B

I can only assume that the estuary bridge is the limiting factor there unfortunately.

nordydan

dcr22B wrote: »

I can only assume that the estuary bridge is the limiting factor there unfortunately.

If they foregoed the HS, they'd fit in 3 lanes there I would imagine

dcr22B

nordydan wrote: »

If they foregoed the HS, they'd fit in 3 lanes there I would imagine

The HS there is only half the standard width in any case.

Bluetonic

dcr22B wrote: »

I can only assume that the estuary bridge is the limiting factor there unfortunately.

Loads of room on the estuary bridge, it's money and a will thats the limiting factor.

Bluetonic

dcr22B wrote: »

The HS there is only half the standard width in any case.

Plenty of room on the right.

nordydan

Bluetonic wrote: »

Plenty of room on the right.

Yeah that's what I was thinking

Roryhy

M50/N3 interchange

Stark

Interesting. In the initial diagrams, it looked like you would have had a choice of either using the new freeflow slips or continuing onto the roundabout when coming from the N3 inbound. Now it looks like you can only use the roundabout if coming from Blanchardstown village. And there's an underpass so you won't have to stop at the lights at the T-junction. Though I wonder what the point of the underpass is. Surely there's not that much traffic coming from the village? And there should be no need to get rid of the ilghts

Roryhy

But if there were lights it would negate the benefits of the junction being made partially freeflow. They had to do major work at that junction anyway so the underpass probably made more sense. Overall this junction looks a mess but im sure it will improve traffic flow quite dramatically. Worst element of it IMO is that just as you pass through the junction city bound, you arrive at a crossroads with traffic lights, i think that could have been better planned, though i realise its quite complex as it is.

Stark

Well the major (non-village) movements will still be freeflow even with the lights at the village, with the exception of N3 outbound, but you have to stop at the roundabout there anyway.

whosedaddy?

looks like the diagram that was posted on the N3 - M50 junction thread long time ago.

Still think the big shifted bottleneck / holdup will the the traffic lights at the auburn ave junction.... unless there is some sort of underpass reducing cross traffic.... (if they can make an underpass for Blanch village...

And I can't work out the reason for that road next to the canal onto New Dunsink Lane. - unless this is cause you can't turn left coming from roundabout as you have to cross traffic lanes...

Roryhy

Stark wrote: »

Well the major (non-village) movements will still be freeflow even with the lights at the village, with the exception of N3 outbound, but you have to stop at the roundabout there anyway.

There will be no roundabout, clear run out.

cargo

dcr22B wrote: »

I can only assume that the estuary bridge is the limiting factor there unfortunately.

nordydan wrote: »

If they foregoed the HS, they'd fit in 3 lanes there I would imagine

dcr22B wrote: »

The HS there is only half the standard width in any case.

Bluetonic wrote: »

Loads of room on the estuary bridge, it's money and a will thats the limiting factor.

Bluetonic wrote: »

Plenty of room on the right.

nordydan wrote: »

Yeah that's what I was thinking

I've been looking at this a few times coming across it to see how easy it would be to add the 3rd lane and am a bit worried about that area on the right. While there is definately plenty of width the fit a 3rd lane on the bridge, did you notice that the area to the right is currently finished in concrete that slopes downward from the centre of the bridge (where L3 would go) towards L2. It finishes at a level thats above that of L2. Although only slight at L2 I'd still image it's about 50mm above the level of L2 and I suspect the sloppe across L3 is too severe to just sloe the new lane to match.

Is there a possibility that this bridge surface is only superficial and is designed to be taken back to allow a new lane to be added. It certainly looks like it was designed with this in mind.

Stark

Roryhy wrote: »

There will be no roundabout, clear run out.

I don't see that on the diagram. Inbound has freeflow onto M50N, M50S and straight-through but outbound has one lane branching off onto M50S and the other 3 lanes go onto the roundabout.

Roryhy

Sorry, i was talking about the roundabout at the entrance to the village, of course the big one will still be there.