Newlands and the NRA.

mallet head

http://www.nra.ie/mapping/index.jsp?county=Dublin

Just a couple of quick questions folks

1)Why is their 2 separate schemes on the NRA website link above?

2) Is either likely to be built in the present climate?

Sorry if this topic has already been covered.

D.L.R.

mallet head wrote: »

http://www.nra.ie/mapping/index.jsp?county=Dublin

Just a couple of quick questions folks

1)Why is their 2 separate schemes on the NRA website link above?

2) Is either likely to be built in the present climate?

Sorry if this topic has already been covered.

1. Because the NRA can't be arsed to tidy up their site.

2. It (singluar) won't be built for at least a few years.

Why they can't just bridge Belgard Road OVER the N7, I don't know.

L1011

At this stage, why they can't just put a freeflow slip from Belgard N/B to N7 W/B I'll never know - it'd remove the worst part of the entire thing and would cost bog all. I can be stuck sitting in that queue for 15 minutes of an evening when there was no tailback inbound in the morning.

The last time the lights were out people were treating the turn lane as if it was flashing orange and actually using the merge lane provided rather than cutting straight out - no traffic problems at all... unless you needed to cross the N7!

mysterious

That flyover should of been built 30 years ago. Now it's more akward since everything is built around and now a golf course borders right next too it.

Ideally I would prefer free flowing loops built to the SW corner allowing Citylanes to loop onto the Clondalkin road without touching lights.
I would also like the bridge to be 8lanes wide with 2 HS. Or at least having it future proofed. 3 lanes each way with no HS is not acceptable for the amount of traffic it carries.

DWCommuter

MYOB wrote: »

At this stage, why they can't just put a freeflow slip from Belgard N/B to N7 W/B I'll never know - it'd remove the worst part of the entire thing and would cost bog all. I can be stuck sitting in that queue for 15 minutes of an evening when there was no tailback inbound in the morning.

Irish Government mandarins have a history of ignoring the short term quick fix in a lot of transport areas pending a better long term solution. I say this notwithstanding the times when they fail to future proof the bigger projects.

There is an immediate need to install a free flow lane to the N7 west bound. You are right. It would cost peanuts and eliminate an unnecessary hold up over night.

D'Peoples Voice

From memory, there is a bus stop just after Newlands Cross on the N7 westbound, I'd imagine having coaches stopped at that bus stop, whilst allowing a constant flow of cars from R113 Northbound out onto that same bus lane could be troublesome - you know what drivers in this country are like for merging!

L1011

D'Peoples Voice wrote: »

From memory, there is a bus stop just after Newlands Cross on the N7 westbound, I'd imagine having coaches stopped at that bus stop, whilst allowing a constant flow of cars from R113 Northbound out onto that same bus lane could be troublesome - you know what drivers in this country are like for merging!

Move it to the other side of the interchange, like it has been before. In fact, did they even move it back to the west side after the gas works?

DWCommuter

MYOB wrote: »

Move it to the other side of the interchange, like it has been before. In fact, did they even move it back to the west side after the gas works?

The bus stop was on the city side of Newlands during those gas works. Its a no brainer to leave it there and install a very basic freeflow lane for the N7 west. There is absolutely no acceptable excuse to inflict unnecessary congestion on commuters using this particular route. But unfortunetly there are many similar examples of this malaise throughout the city.

mysterious

When are they actually going to upgrade this junction. It's just going to be madness when 2010 comes when all the interurbans are finished or thereabouts.

At present the traffic light sequencing isn't managing. As the N7 is favoured over the Fonthill/Belgard road. It might seem good for N7 traffic but the adjacent roads are becoming very backed up. The N7 traffic gets backed up as we all know. It's Ireland busiest crossroad.

They really need to get their finger out and get this built. 8 Lane bridge with HS

Not a quick fix no HS overbridge.

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

They really need to get their finger out and get this built. 8 Lane bridge with HS

And where do you think we'll get the cash to knock Newlands Renault and the buildings the opposite side of the St. Brigids Road? Putting in a ten lane overbridge plus the slips required for people to actually get on/off the N7 is impossible in the land envelope they currently have.

Pushing the junction south would create a chicane effect and require cutting a hole off the golf course.

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

And where do you think we'll get the cash to knock Newlands Renault and the buildings the opposite side of the St. Brigids Road? Putting in a ten lane overbridge plus the slips required for people to actually get on/off the N7 is impossible in the land envelope they currently have.

Pushing the junction south would create a chicane effect and require cutting a hole off the golf course.

There is width. Go look again. The existing Renault does not have to be touched.


It's not impossible either. I've drawn my own maps and it's fit's perfectly. The central median is there plus two Right lanes. The landbank of 7metres max is all that would be needed on the Belgard road side.

The Belgard to the Clondalkin road cross section is more than 30metres there is plenty of room.

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

There is width. Go look again. The existing Renault does not have to be touched.


It's not impossible either. I've drawn my own maps and it's fit's perfectly. The central median is there plus two Right lanes. The landbank of 7metres max is all that would be needed on the Belgard road side.

The Belgard to the Clondalkin road cross section is more than 30metres there is plenty of room.

Upload them then.

I'd like you to upload those motorway standards specifications you have while you're at it.

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

And where do you think we'll get the cash to knock Newlands Renault and the buildings the opposite side of the St. Brigids Road? Putting in a ten lane overbridge plus the slips required for people to actually get on/off the N7 is impossible in the land envelope they currently have.

Pushing the junction south would create a chicane effect and require cutting a hole off the golf course.

Well if we are going to put leisure over neccessaity then, we clearly have a dysfunctional country all together.:rolleyes:

If we were to take land of the Golf course it would be minimal.

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

Upload them then.

I'd like you to upload those motorway standards specifications you have while you're at it.

It's on the NRA website, go look at them. It's is the Road design section of roads and bridges. The NRA follow the English standards for motorways.

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

It's on the NRA website, go look at them. It's is the Road design section of roads and bridges. The NRA follow the English standards for motorways.

The English standards which aren't anywhere near as high as the ones you claim to have read are?

Anyway, you're the one claiming such a specification exists, not me. I don't see why I should have to go look for it. Are your maps on the NRA site too?

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

If we were to take land of the Golf course it would be minimal.

And the CPO cost would be astronomical considering a 17 hole golf course is basically non-functional. More money we don't have outside of your little world.

Chris_533976

The problem with making it 4 lanes is that whats on either side of it isnt 4 lanes, and having lane merges either side of it would cause jams. Now I dont know the area well myself, so I dont know if they could be made lane drops rather than 4 into 3, but thats what strikes my mind with the 4 lane proposal.

L1011

Chris_533976 wrote: »

The problem with making it 4 lanes is that whats on either side of it isnt 4 lanes, and having lane merges either side of it would cause jams. Now I dont know the area well myself, so I dont know if they could be made lane drops rather than 4 into 3, but thats what strikes my mind with the 4 lane proposal.

If they added an extra lane on the section between Newlands and the Red Cow and had it be gain/drop at NC, that'd be grand. However; this wouldn't require putting lanes across the bridge. And isn't possible due to the access road for Joels, etc, to the north of that part of the N7 and other buildings to the south. Not sure of the potential clearance for lanes under the bowstring bridge either.

Putting 5 lanes each way across the bridge would be excessive even planning for 20 years time and a hypothetical D4 upgrade of the Naas Road - as there is absolutely no need for a HS over the bridge. Putting 4 lanes as 3+ full width HS for future changing to 4 IF the space is available wouldn't be as bad.

In an ideal world where the golf course and quarry weren't there, four lanes to the ORR junction with a lane drop/gain there wouldn't be a bad idea either. But we live in reality, not fantasy - and anyway, the proper fantasy would be to use the lovely empty M7 alignment to the missing M50 junction...

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

If they added an extra lane on the section between Newlands and the Red Cow and had it be gain/drop at NC, that'd be grand. However; this wouldn't require putting lanes across the bridge. And isn't possible due to the access road for Joels, etc, to the north of that part of the N7 and other buildings to the south. Not sure of the potential clearance for lanes under the bowstring bridge either.

There is plenty of land to widen this road to 4 lanes each way from Bowstring to Newlands.

Only in Ireland we think of the impossible. There is room for 5 lanes each way under the Bowstring. The bridge is plenty wide.

Putting 5 lanes each way across the bridge would be excessive even planning for 20 years time and a hypothetical D4 upgrade of the Naas Road - as there is absolutely no need for a HS over the bridge.

Course lets not plan in this country. Your stances is exactly what is wrong with this country in terms of the way we plan things.

Putting 4 lanes as 3+ full width HS for future changing to 4 IF the space is available wouldn't be as bad.

That is just a really annoying thing to say:rolleyes: Thats like saying I won't put mayonaise in my sandwich I won't get as fat.

Cant say much more to that. You either do it right or dont do it at all.

In an ideal world where the golf course and quarry weren't there, four lanes to the ORR junction with a lane drop/gain there wouldn't be a bad idea either. But we live in reality, not fantasy - and anyway, the proper fantasy would be to use the lovely empty M7 alignment to the missing M50 junction...

It's not fantasy it's logic.

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

There is plenty of land to widen this road to 4 lanes each way from Bowstring to Newlands.

Only in Ireland we think of the impossible. There is room for 5 lanes each way under the Bowstring. The bridge is plenty wide.

By forcing a hotel and a petrol station to access directly on to a DC; yes. Not a safe option, but you don't seem to consider road safety important (c.f. reclassification). Also, by shifting the road northwards here and southwards to avoid Newlands Renault you do realise the bridge will be a number of lanes of out line with the road, don't you?

mysterious wrote: »

You either do it right or dont do it at all.

Not doing it at all = Tallaght continues to have gridlock to the north every morning and evening; local economy continues to suffer as a result. Vehicles continues to sit in traffic emitting fumes; local environment continues to suffer as a result.

We have to cut our cloth to what we have.

D.L.R.

Again, why not bridge the Belgard Rd OVER the N7? I'm not talking about an N7 underpass here, just a 4 lane bridge over the current DC. That would allow the N7 to be widened more easily.

Certainly be cheaper than an 8-lane flyover, and far less disruptive.

murphaph

...possibly because metro west also has to get across the N7 at a later date and it's easier this way? The best solution aesthetically is an N4 job, sink the N7 into an underpass but it's the most expensive. Flying the N7 over the R113 is cheaper and will allow the Luas to be routed through, possibly grade separated under the R113. I think it's a more flexible option for the future metro (luas) and that's why they've chosen it.

HonalD

mysterious wrote: »

Cant say much more to that. You either do it right or dont do it at all.

It's not fantasy it's logic.

Mysterious, you appear to enjoy rubbing people up the wrong way! One thing to ask - if there is a free-flow slip lane from the Belgard Road onto the N7 "Southbound/Westbound"...what happens the humble pedestrian trying to cross the road from the bus stop on the N7 (out-of-town) back towards Clondalkin.......not everyone has a car or uses them......:)

L1011

HonalD wrote: »

Mysterious, you appear to enjoy rubbing people up the wrong way! One thing to ask - if there is a free-flow slip lane from the Belgard Road onto the N7 "Southbound/Westbound"...what happens the humble pedestrian trying to cross the road from the bus stop on the N7 (out-of-town) back towards Clondalkin.......not everyone has a car or uses them......:)

Pedestrian lights. However, as that bus stop would have to be moved to its temporary site east of Newlands for safety there wouldn't be anywhere near as much traffic so the lights wouldn't be a major imposition.

HonalD

MYOB wrote: »

Pedestrian lights. However, as that bus stop would have to be moved to its temporary site east of Newlands for safety there wouldn't be anywhere near as much traffic so the lights wouldn't be a major imposition.

Why move the bus stop? What safety?

L1011

HonalD wrote: »

Why move the bus stop? What safety?

Bus trying to pull out with a constant stream of traffic rounding the corner. Not gonna happen during rush hour.

HonalD

MYOB wrote: »

Bus trying to pull out with a constant stream of traffic rounding the corner. Not gonna happen during rush hour.

Exactly a reason not to have a free-flow left turn for traffic...why would bus passengers be relocated just for the benefit of motorsts?!? Sustainble solution I think not!

L1011

HonalD wrote: »

Exactly a reason not to have a free-flow left turn for traffic...why would bus passengers be relocated just for the benefit of motorsts?!? Sustainble solution I think not!

1: The bus stop in question gets relatively little traffic
2: It has been moved across the junction before for roadworks
3: Moving it 100 metres is going to have a miniscule impact on the bus passengers
4: The environmental damage caused by 100+ cars in a static queue burning fuel outweighs the miniscule impact on the passengers.

HonalD

MYOB, I use this junction and I'm not arguing against an increase in the capacity of the left turning movement BUT my point is that improvements should be made here without displacing the bus passengers....also, there are a surprising amount of u-turning traffic on the N7 eastbound and this conflicts with the free-flow lane. This is one of the reasons why the left turn is controlled - it conflicts with the u-turning traffic.....

L1011

the only time traffic can possibly u turn at present is when the left turn is allowed! This situation will not change.

Guy:Incognito

U-turning wont affect a free flow left slip from the Belgard road. The slip would be around 100 yards long. meaning the people u-turning would be 100-120 yards back from the people merging. Merging doesnt mean blindly vere out onto the carriageway.

3 lanes to accomodate people doing U-turns and people merging from a slip down the road is perfectly acceptable