M7 - Nenagh to Limerick

mysterious

clon wrote: »

It was the senior roads engineer from North Tipperary County Council that stated the road would be open in three months.It was the politicians who stated the obvious that it would cost millions more to finish.

Yeah so they can rob the millions. All it needs is a good engineering check to see what can be done to keep the road safe and stable. There is always a solution.

I can't stand politicians. We could seriously stop putting our attention to them. :mad:

The Word Is Bor

mysterious wrote: »

I think they should throw, rocks building waste, concrete, scraps of wood and what not either side and dig it into the bog itself in the meantime. They would put more pillars either side of it, and put horizontal rows deep under the foundation like a matress support under the bed. I would say at least 2/4 metres under the foundation.
Then plant some kind of trees that help stabalize the bog itself.


The point is, while they come up with a solution, they could be doing other things to keep progress and be making the bog more stable.

What about the crab people civilization?

lukejr

Article from Nenagh Guardian April 24th 2010 issue.

Berty

Remember I said on my observations previously that there was something odd on the Northbound carraigeway.

I saw it today and remembered

There is a Temporary orange LED trailer flashing up notices

What does it say?

"Overtaking Lane Closed Ahead"

Never heard of it! :mad:

123easy

lukejr wrote: »

Article from Nenagh Guardian April 24th 2010 issue.

God dont you just hate councillors.:rolleyes: especially ones from the Labour party

daveharnett

KevR wrote: »

It is all perceived. It's safer to hit concrete in every type of vehicle. Some people think steel barriers are safer because the steel bends to absorb some of the impact while concrete barriers are fully solid objects.

All makes a lot of sense. I would imagine the solid concrete barriers must be better for motorcyclists too. The armco barriers are quite high - plenty of room for a biker to slide underneath and hit one of the supports :eek:

123easy

Steel central resrve barriers are a total disater. The NRA have henceforth banned their use on future motorway projects after the terrible armco thing was used on the M6 B2A.

when a steel barrier takes a whack its a right mess to replace/ fix it concrete is fine after a whack and many years of research have gone into perfecting its shape.

At the moment the UK HA are in the process of retrofittiing Steel with solid Concrete and have pretty much acknowledged that steel central reserve aint very clever

mysterious

123easy wrote: »

Steel central resrve barriers are a total disater. The NRA have henceforth banned their use on future motorway projects after the terrible armco thing was used on the M6 B2A.

when a steel barrier takes a whack its a right mess to replace/ fix it concrete is fine after a whack and many years of research have gone into perfecting its shape.

At the moment the UK HA are in the process of retrofittiing Steel with solid Concrete and have pretty much acknowledged that steel central reserve aint very clever

I preferred the steel barrier before, but I did wondered about the impact issue. There has been some hits on the Naas road DC already, and it would seem so time consuming to repair it.


The concrete barrier could be replaced with a steel version of it? Don't they exist. Where each steel compartment latches onto the next girder. The girder is a replica shape to the concrete barrier.

KevR

daveharnett wrote: »

All makes a lot of sense. I would imagine the solid concrete barriers must be better for motorcyclists too. The armco barriers are quite high - plenty of room for a biker to slide underneath and hit one of the supports :eek:

Yeah, that's another problem with steel barriers where motorcyclists are concerned.

Those cable wire median barriers are even worse for motorcyclists. Human body hitting the cables at very high speed = horrific lacerations. Obviously, a human body hitting a concrete barrier at high speed is likely to sustain very bad (even fatal) injuries, but you do have a better chance with concrete.

I absolutely hate the steel cable barriers. I can tolerate steel armco barriers but I much prefer concrete.

By the way, concrete barriers are cheaper than steel over a 50 year period. Steel usually has a maximum life span of 20 years while concrete can typically last 50 years. Also, sections of steel will have to be replaced after most impacts which adds to cost, means annoying lane closures and maintenance workers are being sent into a dangerous environment unnecessarily.


Mods: sorry for going really off-topic here!

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

The concrete barrier could be replaced with a steel version of it? Don't they exist. Where each steel compartment latches onto the next girder. The girder is a replica shape to the concrete barrier.

They exist.

They're less safe, they get damaged, and are generally a poor idea. They're used here for crossover points in concrete barriersand thats it. They will NEVER be used beyond that. Concrete is the future, and I could see it being retrofitted to existing schemes over time.

There is previous in this area - all motorways and N-primary DC's grew a wire barrier over the space of about two years not that long ago - even the short bit of N13 thats DC got it. Could see a total rollout of concrete when money reappears.

Mc Love

And if you ever notice these bare spots in motorways/DC's where once there was a steel barrier there are this vertical red and white bars sticking out of the ground. Cheap alterantive or will they have the same stopping power as steel barrier??

roosterman71

If the concrete is so much safer, and possibly cheaper, why are there steel armco barriers along the outside of motorways. You'll see them where the road is higher than the surrounding land, near ramps, at bridges, etc. Why is steel used on the outside, when concrete is used in the centre?

Chris_5339762

Cos if you crash through the side of the road into the field you're not going to plough into oncoming traffic going the same speed as you in the opposite direction

roosterman71

I understand what your trying to say, and I agree. But is it not better to stay on the road by crashing into a designed concrete barrier and not plough through a steel one into a field? I don't get why they think concrete is better in the middle, and not a better option than steel on the side too

L1011

Because its too expensive to use on the sides. The steel barriers aren't anywhere near continous anyway.

They don't "think" concrete is better. They know concrete is better, from years of studies. The step barrier first came in to use in 1955!

Berty

Put it a more semi-technical way.

A load bearing test on concrete would yield a higher resistance where steel would crumple incredibly fast.

The Concrete barrier is actually more expensive to build but mathematicall is quicker to build.

Some countries use pre made concrete barriers whereas here we mould them on site uses a "kerber". They are around $250,000 and you need around 5 guys and constantly arriving concrete trucks with a very difficult to manage mix where the slump is only between 25-35, otherwise it would just collapse.

So conrete is much tougher, lasts longer and is frightening enough to drive next to doing 120kph+.

KevR

roosterman71 wrote: »

If the concrete is so much safer, and possibly cheaper, why are there steel armco barriers along the outside of motorways. You'll see them where the road is higher than the surrounding land, near ramps, at bridges, etc. Why is steel used on the outside, when concrete is used in the centre?

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Cos if you crash through the side of the road into the field you're not going to plough into oncoming traffic going the same speed as you in the opposite direction

+1

roosterman71 wrote: »

I understand what your trying to say, and I agree. But is it not better to stay on the road by crashing into a designed concrete barrier and not plough through a steel one into a field? I don't get why they think concrete is better in the middle, and not a better option than steel on the side too

Well, you do have the hard shoulder as margin for error so you're less likely to hit the outside barrier. If the outside barrier is damaged you can just close of the hard shoulder to repair it; virtually no disruption and less dangerous for the maintenance crew. With a steel central barrier, you would usually have to close of the overtaking lane in both directions to repair a damaged barrier; lots of disruption on a busy stretch and more dangerous for the maintenance crew.

You won't be travelling at 120kmh on most ramps and are therefore a lot less likely to break through those steel barriers if you hit one.

I would imagine that using steel on the outside is a much easier option for drainage in some cases also.

I said that concrete is cheaper over a 50 year period but should have mentioned that concrete is more expensive than steel initially. If we were to have all outer barriers as concrete then the initial cost of building our motorway network would rise quite a lot, possibly to the point where some of the existing and under-construction sections of motorway wouldn't have got done at all.

In my opinion, they have taken the most sensible approach in putting concrete barriers in the central reservation and steel barriers on the outer edges of the carriageway.

mysterious

My god this topic has gotten way off topic... Any news on the road as such?

phog

Anyone notice some uneveness on a short section of the southbound side of the new road? Travlled it this eveing and thought one particular spot was very bad.

mysterious

Since the motorway has opened has it made traffic worsen in the village of Birdhill? Birdhill is looking better and better these days with the tidy town competitions it keeps winning. I bet the people of Birdhill will now plant on the roundabout now. They will attack it like a bang with some flowers.:D

I read on the Guardian, that tailbacks now occur since the motorway opened. Everytime a new bit of motorway opens it funnels traffic at both sides much faster into a slow speed limit and thus creates tailbacks.

dergside

Can't say I've noticed a difference one way or the other. The roundabout was there beforehand so all the traffic traversing it was doing so previously. The only real difference in flow is that there may be marginally more traffic to give way to for those approaching from the motorway because there is a small volume of traffic still approaching from the old N7 south, in addition to the traffic from Ballina. Eastbound traffic heading for the motorway has virtually no traffic to give way to so no holdup there.

L1011

On the concrete/steel issue, I noticed on the Fermoy BP (open is it 6 years now?) the concrete has no visible signs of sections being replaced due to damage, albeit some sections are heavily tyre marked from people hitting it.

The armco on the Blackwater viaduct is bent though!

On the Watergrasshill BP, which is only about 18mths older, I lost count of how often the wire barrier had detensioned/collapsed and there were three collapsed sections of armco.

101sean

I bet the people of Birdhill will now plant on the roundabout now.

As long as they don't try and plant trees on it, there's a big storm water attenuation tank under it!

mossym

101sean wrote: »

As long as they don't try and plant trees on it, there's a big storm water attenuation tank under it!

couldn't understand those when i same them going in, there has never been a problem with water drainage there, there is a nice roll off from the road down to a stream on the killaloe side, seemed total overkill

Rovi

mossym wrote: »

couldn't understand those when i same them going in, there has never been a problem with water drainage there, there is a nice roll off from the road down to a stream on the killaloe side, seemed total overkill

Attenuation tanks/ponds aren't about the surrounding drainage, they're there to control potential 'flash-floods' coming off the road into local watercourses during heavy rain and to act as containment in the event of a significant pollutant spillage.

Wasn't there an incident with an oil lorry crashing and loosing its load somewhere near the Liffey Valley Retail Park on the M4 a few years ago, when there was a major pollution 'event' because all the drainage off the road went straight downhill into the Liffey?
Attenuation ponds and similar mitigation measures were added to the specification of all the projects built after that.

mysterious

Techy posted a link (of the Killaloe- Ballina bypass) Which is really badly needed) which links to the M7 birdhill R494 directly. This will give mid Clare direct access to the M7.

The populations of both towns had 50precent growth in the last census. It has aone lane bridge over the Shannon with pedestrians to give way too..

mysterious

101sean wrote: »

As long as they don't try and plant trees on it, there's a big storm water attenuation tank under it!

Trees are natural flood barriers. Trees can take up a large amount of surface water from the ground and it keeps the soils well drained.

mossym

mysterious wrote: »

Techy posted a link (of the Killaloe- Ballina bypass) Which is really badly needed) which links to the M7 birdhill R494 directly. This will give mid Clare direct access to the M7.

The populations of both towns had 50precent growth in the last census. It has aone lane bridge over the Shannon with pedestrians to give way too..

agreed, grew up on the killaloe side, now living on the ballina side, and a town bypass is well needed. the proposed bypass will run along the edge of my parents house/land so they're not overly pleased about it but it is needed.

either that or roadblocks to stop the limerick folk coming out every time the sun goes out. on a warm sunday it's almost pointless leaving the house between 2 and 8pm

it's long been the path from the n7 to people hitting from dublin to east clare, so as you said the bypass is needed

mossym

Rovi wrote: »

Attenuation tanks/ponds aren't about the surrounding drainage, they're there to control potential 'flash-floods' coming off the road into local watercourses during heavy rain and to act as containment in the event of a significant pollutant spillage.

Wasn't there an incident with an oil lorry crashing and loosing its load somewhere near the Liffey Valley Retail Park on the M4 a few years ago, when there was a major pollution 'event' because all the drainage off the road went straight downhill into the Liffey?
Attenuation ponds and similar mitigation measures were added to the specification of all the projects built after that.

my point was that with the run off all along the road it would be highly unlikely to have water flowing dowan the road but i take your point, it could also be a fear of water running down the new connector road

sillyboy

mysterious wrote: »

Since the motorway has opened has it made traffic worsen in the village of Birdhill? Birdhill is looking better and better these days with the tidy town competitions it keeps winning. I bet the people of Birdhill will now plant on the roundabout now. They will attack it like a bang with some flowers.:D

I read on the Guardian, that tailbacks now occur since the motorway opened. Everytime a new bit of motorway opens it funnels traffic at both sides much faster into a slow speed limit and thus creates tailbacks.

I drive it every day and there are no tailbacks in either direction. I don't believe anything I read from that source in relation to this. They will print anything to fill those column inches, justifying it by stating it is from an "informed source" that in the end always turns out to be mis-informed.