M7/M8 Portlaoise-Castletown-Cullahill Motorway (incl. Abbeyleix Bypass)

Amtmann

Just looking back over the RTE News website archives I was struck by this report, which I hadn't noticed at the time: http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0111/m7_av.html

Five hundred human skeletons were discovered on the M8 element of the scheme just south of Cullahill in 2006.

spacetweek

mysterious wrote: »

What we build here is just not only unimaginatve it's boring. Like if you were to drive down the M7 every interchange is the same, diamond interchanges with roundabout's the whole way till you meet another stupid rotary the mother of the diamond types.

Is "boredom" a good way to choose junction design??

Total overreaction here. Overbuilding roads is a bad thing. In every country, you don't build in movements that aren't needed.

I hate the attitude, "I saw feature X in another country, so the NRA are wrong not to be building it in Ireland." That's a fallacy.

Chris_533976

Furet wrote: »

Just looking back over the RTE News website archives I was struck by this report, which I hadn't noticed at the time: http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0111/m7_av.html

Five hundred human skeletons were discovered on the M8 element of the scheme just south of Cullahill in 2006.

Wonder if thats partly way it didnt get built before Cul - Cash

serfboard

Furet wrote: »

Five hundred human skeletons were discovered on the M8 element of the scheme just south of Cullahill in 2006.

Possibly the remains of chieftains who had squandered all the bounty during the good times and bankrupted the tribe ... who subsequently took their revenge. Ah, the aul' days

Geogregor

Irish and Proud wrote: »

...you mean Meath style interchanges like the N2 Ashbourne South and M3 Kilcarn junctions?

Yes, N2 Ashbourne South it is kind of junction you see as most common on Polish motorways. As I said in Poland it is done this way so it is easy to introduce toll.

What amazes me is that Meath has fancy interchanges (like those mentioned above) while most other counties have to make do with diamonds and rotaries - is this anything to the with the Minister for Meath? :rolleyes:

But there is nothing wrong with diamonds. They are easiest to build and if traffic in not very heavy they are perfect. In many countries slip roads join local roads at traffic lights, in Ireland roundabouts are preferred. I myself prefer roundabouts.
I also like grade separated roundabouts as junctions. It is very popular in UK and to lesser extent in Ireland (M50 junctions before redesigning to free flow) but really rare in continental Europe. (I don't think we have any in Poland)

mysterious

spacetweek wrote: »

Is "boredom" a good way to choose junction design??

Total overreaction here. Overbuilding roads is a bad thing. In every country, you don't build in movements that aren't needed.

I hate the attitude, "I saw feature X in another country, so the NRA are wrong not to be building it in Ireland." That's a fallacy.

I hate when people post idiotic responses !

Interchanges should be built with future proofing and meet the demands of road traffic for at least 20 years.

In this country we keep rebuilding and re doing our interchanges.
We build our interchanges to a very low spec.

Take the Waterford interchange where the N25 and M9 meet - Roundabout...

Take the CNRR. All rotary's and diamonds.

Take Dunkettle.

Take The M50 interchanges. billions spent to upgrade them.

Take the Naas bypass. all have to be knocked.

Take the Portlaoise to Castletown M7/M8 scheme road bridges to narrow for widening.

Take the Galway bypass to Oranmore. Congested due to far to many ROs..

Take the Athlone bypass, can't be upgraded to Motorway,

Take the Nenagh bypass, all bridges have to be knocked. Road outdated onced opened 10 years ago. Now bridges have to be knocked.

Take notice that all our new roads, have no wide medians or space for a third lane! something our planners actually did do in the early 90s.

Take note that we spent billions more than we should of, for the inter urbans since the NRA designed a failed overspent unplanned inter urban network. We have three motorways running side by side through certain counties............. It's utter madness.

Take note we our government is spending billions to make a commuter motorway through meath that ends in Cavan. Can you tell me, that the NRA havent lost it yet. I think they have.

I NEVER mentioned roads, should be overbuilt. Please don't misquote my post spacetweek its a sign of ignorance.

There are million's more examples, of such blunders in the way we build our roads in this country.


I went to Poland, a poorer country and yes there interchanges are higher spec. So don't insult my intellegence in my observation in other countries and how they build their roads. Europe is 30 years ahead of us in every way thinkable when it comes to infastructure. Even now we can't even seem to get things right.

mysterious

Geogregor wrote: »

I also like grade separated roundabouts as junctions. It is very popular in UK and to lesser extent in Ireland (M50 junctions before redesigning to free flow) but really rare in continental Europe. (I don't think we have any in Poland)

They are plentiful, but they are from popular. They were built purely because they were easy purpose built interchanges, able to manage more traffic than simple diamond layout types. But the downside, once overcapacitated, they become riddle with traffic lights, and they are most limited in terms of upgrading.

Alot of these are been replaced in the UK.

I detest them

BluntGuy

I don't generally have any problems with diamond-style roundabout interchanges. They're not a problem because they're not busy. Many interchanges in other countries such as the US are the same (although as Geogregor correctly said, they don't have roundabouts they have traffic signals instead).

What annoys me is the NRA's lack of imagination when it comes to connecting two major roads together.

The M7/M8 design is awful. The M9/N25/N24 roundabout set-up is just waiting to have a retail park glued onto it. M6/M17/M18... yuck. M22/M20 - more horrible than the previous example. M22/M8... worst design I've ever seen.

We just do not know how to connect motorways/DCs together. We don't have a motorway network, we have a bunch of motorways that collide at roundabouts or meet at half-assed free-flow interchanges. A real motorway network connects together properly.

Yes, Britain has its fair share of crappy junctions as well. They love roundabouts. But they also know (in most cases) when free-flow is necessary. We don't.

Carawaystick

Don't forget the M1/M1 junction at Dublin Airport - Two overbridges, traffic lights, etc when one bridge would let the traffic freeflow

invincibleirish

This is the flipside of squalid politics leading the way in deciding what gets built.

Why fund an expensive unglamorous upgrade programme on projects already done when political hay can be made from the latest PR friendly project (empty rural motorway).

Luckily deep recession will mean upgrades can be put off indefinitely as there just won't be as many cars on the road.

AugustusMaximus

spacetweek wrote: »

Is "boredom" a good way to choose junction design??

Total overreaction here. Overbuilding roads is a bad thing. In every country, you don't build in movements that aren't needed.

I hate the attitude, "I saw feature X in another country, so the NRA are wrong not to be building it in Ireland." That's a fallacy.

Has to be the worst post I've ever read on boards.ie

mysterious

Have they all the bridges built on this scheme.

NRA please sack your unable road planners. Your meant to future proof certain motorways where traffic levels could exceed over a 20 year period. Now that I've said, please do print this simple basic english in your head.

Better still. In the NRA head office. As you enter write this note on the main board for every eejit in there that doesnt understand how to plan roads!

When designing roads, I must take into account the predicted future traffic levels, incase of future upgrading. Therefore I must future proof my road design for at least 20 years.

1. From the Motorway to Motorway interchange to the Mountrath interchange should of been wide median. Traffic levels already exceed 24,000 on the Existing M7. A third lane is not needed. But out of most of the inter urban schemes they should of at least given the bridges extra length, so incase of wideing in years to come. It's just like the Nenagh bypass all over again. It cost little to nothing have extra space under the bridges ffs.:mad:

Does anyone not see my point here?

Rovi

Furet wrote: »

Rovi, did work resume promptly in January?

Work got going again shortly into the new year, but the talk is that over 200 people have been let go off the project, and there certainly is less apparent activity going on up here at the Northern end.

No official confirmation or anything, but there is still persistent rumour that in light of the current budgetary restraints, the NRA have renegotiated the 'early completion' bonus part of the contract, but had to relax the 'lateness' penalty parts in order to do so.
Local opinion is that the main contractor is now looking to complete the project as cheaply as possible without getting hit with a (more relaxed that originally) lateness penalty.

Irish and Proud

mysterious wrote: »

1. From the Motorway to Motorway interchange to the Mountrath interchange should of been wide median. Traffic levels already exceed 24,000 on the Existing M7. A third lane is not needed. But out of most of the inter urban schemes they should of at least given the bridges extra length, so incase of wideing in years to come. It's just like the Nenagh bypass all over again. It cost little to nothing have extra space under the bridges ffs.:mad:

Does anyone not see my point here?

I certainly have to agree with you regarding the section of M7 from Portlaoise to the M7-M8 interchange - of course it should be a WD2 - it's so blatantly obvious - who designed this scheme? For engineers who blatantly screw up in their specification, there should be penalties in the form of pay cuts, or in the form of a different kind - a P45! :mad:

What comes to mind is the narrow median N18 from Dromoland to the N85 junction, plus the proposed narrow median DC (on the N11) joining up two WD2 sections at Arklow and Rathnew - like WD2 is still a current standard - NRA DMRB.

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid!!! :mad:

BTW, why can't the NRA use two-span bridges (like on the M8) where future widening could be carried out.

Regards!

Zoney

Geogregor wrote: »

But there is nothing wrong with diamonds. They are easiest to build and if traffic in not very heavy they are perfect. In many countries slip roads join local roads at traffic lights, in Ireland roundabouts are preferred. I myself prefer roundabouts.

Nothing wrong with them if they are serving an R road perhaps (even an adjoining former N road) - but I think people's dislike for them is probably due to stupid undercapacity diamond junctions like the N24/N7 junction on the Limerick Southern Ring Road. It didn't even have traffic lights to begin with - just floating islands for right turns (quite nerve-wracking to negotiate with N24 traffic speeding back and forth straight over the bridge). First traffic calming/permanent islands were retrofitted (making a right mess of things - artics had serious difficulty turning) and then lights were put in. Now all that happens is that the queues are re-arranged to be on the N24 rather than let the slips tail back onto the N7 mainline.

I should point out the circumstances for planning the N24/N7 junction were slightly distorted by the fact that prior to amendment the N24 had high peak traffic and had very little traffic throughout the day (even less at night). They probably designed for the average traffic values and mainly just N24 traffic (without reference to changes due to traffic from N7). Now of course it's an access route into the city (it will be even more so when Childers Road city-bound access is cut off on the new N20/N7 freeflow junction).

Amtmann

Rovi wrote: »

Work got going again shortly into the new year, but the talk is that over 200 people have been let go off the project, and there certainly is less apparent activity going on up here at the Northern end.

No official confirmation or anything, but there is still persistent rumour that in light of the current budgetary restraints, the NRA have renegotiated the 'early completion' bonus part of the contract, but had to relax the 'lateness' penalty parts in order to do so.
Local opinion is that the main contractor is now looking to complete the project as cheaply as possible without getting hit with a (more relaxed that originally) lateness penalty.

Your news does not bode very well; but it could be worse. The contractors still have 24 months to deliver the finished product. It will be interesting to see their next newsletter, which is due in March. I hope they don't claim the weather has affected their progress, because that's surely bogus: it hasn't affected Roadbridge on various M9 and M8 projects, nor SIAC Willis on the N18 G-C scheme.

Cool Mo D

Irish and Proud wrote: »

I certainly have to agree with you regarding the section of M7 from Portlaoise to the M7-M8 interchange - of course it should be a WD2 - it's so blatantly obvious - who designed this scheme? For engineers who blatantly screw up in their specification, there should be penalties in the form of pay cuts, or in the form of a different kind - a P45! :mad:

What comes to mind is the narrow median N18 from Dromoland to the N85 junction, plus the proposed narrow median DC (on the N11) joining up two WD2 sections at Arklow and Rathnew - like WD2 is still a current standard - NRA DMRB.

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid!!! :mad:

BTW, why can't the NRA use two-span bridges (like on the M8) where future widening could be carried out.

Regards!

No it doesn't need wide DC. Not even a little bit, and it's unlikely it ever will. Peak time traffic flow at the end of the Portlaoise bypass is the equivalent 13,000 vehicles a day. A 2-lane motorway can carry 55,000 vpd equivalent. So the road being built has capacity for quadruple the current flow. And you're argueing that money should be spent to make it ready for a possible future upgrade? Wider bridges are expensive, and extra land take is expensive.

A better case could have been made for future proofing the N18 Ennis bypass, which carries a lot more traffic. But even that is well, well below capacity, even at peak times. And traffic volumes are only going to decline in the immediate future.

Zoney

Cool Mo D wrote: »

No it doesn't need wide DC. Not even a little bit, and it's unlikely it ever will. Peak time traffic flow at the end of the Portlaoise bypass is the equivalent 13,000 vehicles a day. A 2-lane motorway can carry 55,000 vpd equivalent. So the road being built has capacity for quadruple the current flow. And you're argueing that money should be spent to make it ready for a possible future upgrade? Wider bridges are expensive, and extra land take is expensive.

A better case could have been made for future proofing the N18 Ennis bypass, which carries a lot more traffic. But even that is well, well below capacity, even at peak times. And traffic volumes are only going to decline in the immediate future.

Is that figure for the end of the Portlaoise bypass *after* the current N8 junction?

I don't know the figures, but I think the suggestion was that the northern section of the new M7 on the M7/M8 project (i.e. the part carrying traffic for Cork as well as Limerick) perhaps should be wide median as a contingency for the future.

Perhaps that's not the case, but the argument for it might be stronger than suggested by your post, if the figure of 13,000 you quote is only the Limerick traffic.

L1011

Portlaoise bypass before current N8 junction:

http://www.nra.ie/NetworkManagement/TrafficCounts/TrafficCounterData/html/M07-20.htm

Portlaoise bypass after current N8 junction:

http://www.nra.ie/NetworkManagement/TrafficCounts/TrafficCounterData/html/N07-18.htm

Both average more than 13,000 a day; let alone the peak time flow equating to 13,000 a day!

Zoney

Well, with those figures, even the relatively high growth of recent years would probably mean that it would be some time indeed before three lane motorway would be needed (>55,000 AADT).

There will of course be some further jump in traffic when the M7/M8 are complete the whole way, but even so...

mysterious

Where the M7/M8 combine

It will be at least 20,000 a day onced opened. As the M8 traffic will negoiate off the M7 further down on the new stretch the traffic levels wont be drastically different from the present counter. The only dip would be maybe the toll addition. But still traffic is already at 24,000 a day from the M7/M8 merge.

Like most motorways that will have higher traffic levels than other's. It was totally unacceptable to build this section with Narrow median, given the fact the there are two motorways modes of traffic converging into one.

The bridges should of been wider at least. But hey we live in this country. The motto is we have to **** it up so many times, to gain common sense.

mysterious

Cool Mo D wrote: »

No it doesn't need wide DC. Not even a little bit, and it's unlikely it ever will. Peak time traffic flow at the end of the Portlaoise bypass is the equivalent 13,000 vehicles a day. A 2-lane motorway can carry 55,000 vpd equivalent. So the road being built has capacity for quadruple the current flow. And you're argueing that money should be spent to make it ready for a possible future upgrade? Wider bridges are expensive, and extra land take is expensive.

A better case could have been made for future proofing the N18 Ennis bypass, which carries a lot more traffic. But even that is well, well below capacity, even at peak times. And traffic volumes are only going to decline in the immediate future.

Your so wrong, and to point it out, is quite silly EVEN.

Your quoting the Limerick section of the counter. That is half of the current traffic that uses this bypass. It doubles once the Cork N8 joins.

The New Motorway, (if you have ever paid enough attention to things :rolleyes:) Will bring the M8 traffic onto this counter as the M8 separates at Aghaboe. I'm not talking about upgrading the two separate legs of M7 and M8

I'm talking about the combined section of M7 and M8 where the traffic doubles. This is where everyone is pointing is where it should be wide motorway. guess you made a huge almighty blunder.

Bear in mind they seem to have gotten it right with the M7/M9 back in the 90s. From the Diverge for the M9 to the Naas bypass it's wide Median. It was a very logical thing to do. Since you have two motorways using this section. So the planners allowed space if it ever needed to be widened. Why can't we plan like this in 2009....

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

Bear in mind they seem to have gotten it right with the M7/M9 back in the 90s. From the Diverge for the M9 to the Naas bypass it's wide Median. It was a very logical thing to do. Since you have two motorways using this section. So the planners allowed space if it ever needed to be widened. Why can't we plan like this in 2009....

And the plan to use said median to add a third lane appeared on NRA.ie recently; although obviously everything there is aspirational at this stage...

Irish and Proud

mysterious wrote: »

Bear in mind they seem to have gotten it right with the M7/M9 back in the 90s. From the Diverge for the M9 to the Naas bypass it's wide Median. It was a very logical thing to do. Since you have two motorways using this section. So the planners allowed space if it ever needed to be widened. Why can't we plan like this in 2009....

...and the M11 from Wilford to the current M50 junction had the same configuration - an extra-wide median to cater for a third lane each way, which were eventually put in place under the M50 SEM scheme.

Also, when service level D traffic capacities are taken into account, there is a significant difference between the D2 and WD2 specs, something like 44k and 55k respectively. So yes, while opposing arguments seem plausible, I think our argument wins out when the design year is taken into account.

BTW, I think there is only one spec for 3 lane provisions on conventional 120kph motorways - (2x3.0m verges; 2x3.0m H/S; 4x3.75m lanes; 2x1.0 M/S; 14.0 central median) as per the current NRA DMRB AFAIK. So there are effectively two WD2 specs. Another interesting note, the Naas Road (completed 2006) is a WD3 aside from the narrow median in places - wide lanes, verges and hard-shoulders.

Regards!

spacetweek

First of all, take a chill pill Mysterious.

mysterious wrote: »

I hate when people post idiotic responses !

Interchanges should be built with future proofing and meet the demands of road traffic for at least 20 years.

In this country we keep rebuilding and re doing our interchanges.
We build our interchanges to a very low spec.

There are a small number of examples of this, maninly due to an under estimation of the huge change in traffic levels and driving behaviour of the Irish. We've seen car ownership levels double in the last 15 years - that means radical change in road specs, widths, and interchange types. The lead-in time for a road - planning, design, construction - is years and years. Only roads designed within the last 10 could be expected to fully comprehend this. PLEASE try to have some sense of perspective.

mysterious wrote: »

Take The M50 interchanges. billions spent to upgrade them.

Built in the 1980s - see above.

mysterious wrote: »

Take the Waterford interchange where the N25 and M9 meet - Roundabout...
Take Dunkettle.

These are valid examples, but were probably in response to an attempt to control costs. They can be upgraded easily enough, both have empty land all around.

mysterious wrote: »

Take the CNRR. All rotary's and diamonds.

Is Cork really a big enough city to need cloverleafs here?? 200,000 people? I'm having trouble thinking of a similar city elsewhere that would do this.

mysterious wrote: »

Take the Portlaoise to Castletown M7/M8 scheme road bridges to narrow for widening.
Take notice that all our new roads, have no wide medians or space for a third lane! something our planners actually did do in the early 90s.

Only the original 3 - M1, M4, M7 to Portlaoise - are ever going to need widening, and all of them have wide medians. The rest will be too quiet to need widening for 30 years. Like invincibleirish said, empty rural motorways. One minute you're complaining about an overspent NRA budget, then you're saying they should have spent loads extra on a 15-metre median bypassing small villages - and it would have been LOADS after that IFA strike, where they got all the farmers to hold out for more money.

mysterious wrote: »

Take the Nenagh bypass, all bridges have to be knocked. Road outdated onced opened 10 years ago. Now bridges have to be knocked.
Take the Naas bypass. all have to be knocked.

I'm pretty sure no bridges have to be knocked here. Nenagh single carriageway was unfortunate, it was designed and built before anyone thought of motorways - see top of post. It wasn't a total waste though, cause it's being incorporated into the new road.

mysterious wrote: »

Take the Athlone bypass, can't be upgraded to Motorway,

It is being upgraded to motorway,

mysterious wrote: »

I NEVER mentioned roads, should be overbuilt. Please don't misquote my post spacetweek its a sign of ignorance.

You didn't say "overbuilt" - I did - most of the examples you've given above are either overbuilding, or else wrong.

mysterious

spacetweek wrote: »

First of all, take a chill pill Mysterious.

Right, but everytime I do, I get silly replies. But I'll try and manage:D

Built in the 1980s - see above.

Wrong! Western Parkway was built in the late 1980s the remainder built in the 90s right up till a few years ago.

Wrong wrong, wrong. Anyhow none of the interchanges had any life spans of at least 20years.

These are valid examples, but were probably in response to an attempt to control costs. They can be upgraded easily enough, both have empty land all around.

Do not put idiotic planning and controlling cost's in the same sentence. Seriously have you been away all these years.

NRA is off in space when it comes to money management. Don't even start to ramble more illogical terms that just don't make sense in that quote of your's.

Is Cork really a big enough city to need cloverleafs here?? 200,000 people? I'm having trouble thinking of a similar city elsewhere that would do this.

Belfast has a 10 lane motorway. BTW not all cork populations use it's network its national traffic we are talking about.

BTW I didn't say cloverleafs.

I.e Very few people use the Nenagh bypass. So in Your silly argument again, should nenagh have at grade roundabouts on it's bypass.

Only the original 3 - M1, M4, M7 to Portlaoise - are ever going to need widening, and all of them have wide medians. The rest will be too quiet to need widening for 30 years.

Yes they forgot that they are moving the M8 further down so widening will be needed there. Never knew we forget so much when we build things in this country. It's laughable to be quite honest it really really is.

One minute you're complaining about an overspent NRA budget, then you're saying they should have spent loads extra on a 15-metre median bypassing small villages - and it would have been LOADS after that IFA strike, where they got all the farmers to hold out for more money.

Again silly silly silly.
Spacetweek, I'll break it all down for you again.
I'm complain that we spent billions building our motorway systems snaking beside the old primary roads, when we could have spent half what we built into a proper intergrated motorway system, that gives the motorway it's best use. Not Having two or three motorways running along side each other for 50 to 100km in the same direction.

Next point I want to separate. We should spend money where we should future proof roads, so WE DON'T have to spend billions knocking bridges down just to upgrade a road.

Spacetweek, is this clearer for you. Don't put words in my mouth please:)

I'm pretty sure no bridges have to be knocked here. Nenagh single carriageway was unfortunate, it was designed and built before anyone thought of motorways - see top of post. It wasn't a total waste though, cause it's being incorporated into the new road.

Your wrong again...........
Limerick to Nenagh bypass was first envisioned in 1997. It was to be the first motorway outside of Dublin at the time. The Nenagh bypass was meant to be Dual carriegway. The N.Tipp council designed a few of the bridges to narrow. Hence it had to go ahead as single lane
Despite the fact that the road was built like a single carriegway motorway with a one bridge actually wide enough for a motorway. When the bypass was opened it was already outdated. Point been stupid absurd planning again, and all to waste more money.

It's not just unfortunate as you put. It's downright stupid.

You didn't say "overbuilt" - I did - most of the examples you've given above are either overbuilding, or else wrong.

No the examples I made are not overbuilding.

They are necessary, get your facts right.

Amtmann

The M7 crossing the R434 road west of Durrow. This photo looks towards Limerick.



The M7 seen from the R434 west of Durrow looking towards Portlaoise.


The M8 seen from the R434 west of Durrow looking north.


The M8 looking south from the same position.


The M8 looking south, seen from a local road west of Cullahill village about 3km west of the present N8. Quality is poor, but if you look closely at the upper left hand side of the photo you can see the route for several kilometres.


The M8 looking north from the same position. This must be the "hard rock" section at Cullahill the last newsletter referred to. Not much sign of progress.

Not a jot of progress has been made at the first overbridge immediately north of the C-C scheme terminus. The bridge looks just as it did last November.

Steviemak

Thanks Furet. Very disappointing progress being made there. Not too much sign of work either. It almost looks abandoned!

End of 2010 it looks like:mad:

Chris_533976

Looks shockingly abandoned, especially compared to those Fermoy - Mitch pics, where they had a massive line of trucks.

Absolutely nothing happening in ANY of these pics

Amtmann

Yes, shockingly little activity. CRG are building the Waterford Bypass too. If and when that opens early, do you think they'll send the machinary and manpower up to Laois? Is Q4 2010 still achievable? I think it is, but certainly not unless they pick up the pace significantly.

It is worth bearing in mind, though, that my pictures only show the two legs of the scheme, so to speak. I didn't see the intersection, toll plaza, or any bit north-east of this. It's possible that that's where all the work is concentrated at the moment, though only Rovi can confirm this.