N7/N11 Newlands Cross & Arklow to Rathnew

mysterious

spacetweek wrote: »

Although I agree the 3+3 arrangement is regrettable, we gotta remember that the NRA never said they were going to provide 4+4 - it was us that said that. Let's keep in mind that as much as some of us would like to believe it, the NRA don't actually read threads like this!

So now that we aware of the **** up.
Do we let the fucck up become a reality.

Do you like **** ups to happen with the foresight you have now?

No, we absolutely don't mate! The NRA do. See above.

Yes we do see this line.

Be careful about making this assumption. This thinking is called Predict and Provide and isn't appropriate in an urban or even semi-urban area, because of the phenomenon of induced traffic.
Though one could argue that the strategic importance of the M7/M9 to Red Cow section of the N7 is so high that no traffic mitigation measure could ever be effective on it. We may be doomed to continually squeezing extra lanes in here for decades.

So lets fucck it up then, and make sure we keep it a fucck up.

Finally, note the widening work to accommodate Metro West that the tender mentions. This means that MW will conflict with the exit and entrance ramps here. Not good. They really should just underground the thing, they have to dig up the whole site anyway.

So from your ingenius realisations what do you suggest we do?

spacetweek

Chris_533976 wrote: »

I **think** this whole thing is being planned with MW in mind. I dont think any of it will need to be dug up when MW comes along.

Sorry I should have been more clear here. I know they won't have to dig it up again when they build MW. I mean build a tunnel for MW when they're digging up the site for the grade separation.

What I'm saying is that even with the future junction allowing for MW, it still won't be good enough as there'll be a conflict as the tracks will pass in front of entrance and exit ramps.

mysterious wrote: »

So from your ingenius realisations what do you suggest we do?

I said it already. Fire off emails to them for now, then when their design drawings are out we'll have to hope there's room for the 7th and 8th lanes to be added to the overbridges.

And I'm not happy with the Metro West arrangements. It should be undergrounded.

Carawaystick

Reading between the lines of this The N11 scheme will be motorway.
Ther'll be an all purpose single carriageway road from North off the Beehive to Ballymoyle, in parallel with the new dual carriageway.
I wonder if they'll remove/close the Lilo's at Arklow rugby club to make it motorway the whole way to Clogh?

NedNew

Carawaystick wrote: »

Reading between the lines of this The N11 scheme will be motorway.
Ther'll be an all purpose single carriageway road from North off the Beehive to Ballymoyle, in parallel with the new dual carriageway.
I wonder if they'll remove/close the Lilo's at Arklow rugby club to make it motorway the whole way to Clogh?

We're in for a long wait first though... the contract won't be signed until Q4 of 2011.

nordydan

Carawaystick wrote: »

Reading between the lines of this The N11 scheme will be motorway.
Ther'll be an all purpose single carriageway road from North off the Beehive to Ballymoyle, in parallel with the new dual carriageway.
I wonder if they'll remove/close the Lilo's at Arklow rugby club to make it motorway the whole way to Clogh?

I always presumed this would be motorway (as the schemes either side are going to be to give one good reason).
However if you the 2nd paragraph of page 5 of the pdf linked above you'll read:

The route commences at the northern end of the full width dual carriageway section of the Arklow Bypass. The proposed Type 2 dual carriageway alignment passes west of Jack White’s Cross Roads and a grade – separated junction is proposed at this location (Brittas) to provide local access from the existing N11 (to be reclassified as the R772) all purpose road. A second grade-separated junction is proposed just to the west of ‘The Beehive’ junction (Wicklow South), providing access to Wicklow Town via the R751. Thereafter the route converges on the tie-in point with the southern end of the existing Rathnew/ Ashford dual carriageway near Ballinaclogh.

I hope this is a mistake :mad:

loyatemu

NedNew wrote: »

We're in for a long wait first though... the contract won't be signed until Q4 of 2011.

looks like a misprint - receipt of final tenders is in June 2010, so contract signing is probably Nov 2010 (as with the Gort-Tuam scheme).

BluntGuy

nordydan wrote: »

I hope this is a mistake :mad:

I'm not so sure about that. The way it explicitly refers to the adjacent scheme as a "full width dual carriageway" section would seem to suggest that Type 2 DC is what will be used.

Though, I've been under the impression for a long time that full DC was being used as part of a wider plan to have as much as the N11 as M.
Seems strange to me they'd M the Enniscorthy bit, but not this. Especially since they're building a local access route on this scheme.

I think some cost-cutting is taking place here.

Chris_533976

Add to that that the CPOs have presumably been done (ages ago) with full width in mind?

Carawaystick

yeah, at least one house was demolished, several others have bars across the windows. Oddly, someone was mowing the grass in one of these between Jack Whites and Barndarrig

The junction for Brittas Bay/Redcross was there in the cpo documents, along with the junction at the Beehive for Wicklow.


The CPO Inspectors report says:
"The proposed cross-section is a standard dual two-lane carriageway with a
median varying in width to suit the geometric requirements for visibility. Each
carriageway will consist of a seven metre wide trafficked carriageway comprising
two lanes of 3.5m width with 2.5m wide hard shoulders and 3.0m wide verges.
The central median shall be a minimum width of 3m, which includes two 1.0m
wide hardstrips. The overall minimum width between back of verges is 28m.
Typical cross sections for the N11, Local and Regional Roads are shown on
Drawing N11/EIS/3/1.1.12 of Volume 3 of the EIS"

http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/reports/CH2/RCH2145.pdf

murphaph

Type II would be very short sighted here. If they must use Type II along the N11 then do it for the Enniscorthy Bypass and make this bit full motorway. They are putting the last nail in the M11 coffin if they proceed with type II here and as mentioned the CPO is already through and the land take is almost certainly wide enough for D2M so actually Type II would be a waste of money (already spent money!).

Stan_D

Back to Newlands Cross...

All this talk about what can or should be done is pointless as the scheme design is fixed by virtue of it having successfully gone through the Planning and CPO stages. So there is no scope for any changes to the design.

The scheme has been designed based on traffic volumes for an opening year of 2009 and a design year of 2024. Predicted traffic volumes are from the NRA's SATURN modelling system, which was used as the basis for the M50.

The N7 mainline overbridge has been designed as a 3+3 with 1m wide hard strips and with zero allowance for future widening. The interchange has been designed as tightly as possible to limit 3rd party land acquisition, thus helping the scheme get through Planning with relative ease.

So that means 3 lanes inbound much like what we have now, except obviously grade separation with off-on ramps and no direct access to the service road (along Joels, etc) from the N7. Outbound will have 4 lanes with a lane drop at Newlands Cross interchange.

Carawaystick

Stan_D wrote: »

The scheme has been designed based on traffic volumes for an opening year of 2009 and a design year of 2024. Predicted traffic volumes are from the NRA's SATURN modelling system, which was used as the basis for the M50.

Well that worked out fine, I mean it wasn't built half the width it should have been or anything...

mysterious

it does not have a design year of 2024, where the **** was that stated.


I don't like bull**** in print.


Trafic at the bridge is 90,000 a day. its at capacity already. When it opens in 2011 like the inter urbans traffic willl shortly reach 100,000.

The previous design was designed to a minimal upgrade with little to no landtake. This kind of bull**** is not acceptable. The Car sales room is now derelict and should be knocked down and incoporated into the interchange.


Let's not make a **** up again here. Build a proper interchange. It doesn't cost anything more to give extra space for widening.

murphaph

Derelict, lol. The business failed a couple of months ago and the building is already derelict according to Mysterious :rolleyes:

The 'derelict' building is actually owned by Bill Cullen (not his business, he's just the landlord) and he won't be 'handing it over foc' anytime soon. It would need to be paid for it we want to build over it.

Ireland is deep in recession by the way. Saving on costs while still delivering adequate infrastructure is to be praised IMO.

If we ever get out of the recession we can build the M7 from Naas to the missing J8 someday.

Tech3

murphaph wrote: »

Type II would be very short sighted here. If they must use Type II along the N11 then do it for the Enniscorthy Bypass and make this bit full motorway. They are putting the last nail in the M11 coffin if they proceed with type II here and as mentioned the CPO is already through and the land take is almost certainly wide enough for D2M so actually Type II would be a waste of money (already spent money!).

Type II between 2 dual carriageways/motorway makes absolutely no sense.
I think the NRA are making a complete f**kup aswell puttin the Enniscorthy Bypass scheme ahead of the M20 in the new reformed announcment of the PPP's.

The motorway network will not have the correct balance we need the M20/M18/M17 to connect the other cities as well as having the inter urban routes going to Dublin.

loyatemu

what exactly is TypeII - Is it the same as 2+2? I very much doubt thats what they will be building, the stretches at either end are motorway standard and are due to be redesignated.

Tech3

Road-Hog wrote: »

I still don't know what you are getting your boxers in a twist about? If we are in for a long drawn out recession/depression then who needs four lanes each way, traffic volumes will be actually dropping so maybe they (NRA) are just factoring this in to their 20year design horizon?

I think mysterious is right on this though, why bulid a 3+3 lane bridge when a upgrade will probably be needed to 4+4 in the not so distant future. Build a bridge capable of 4+4 but keep it 3+3 until the upgrade is taking place on the rest of the route to the M50. The NRA have been p*ssing our money away long enough now on upgrading roads they built just a few years ago and then upgrading them again to match the current traffic levels.

Tech3

loyatemu wrote: »

what exactly is TypeII - Is it the same as 2+2? I very much doubt thats what they will be building, the stretches at either end are motorway standard and are due to be redesignated.

Yep 2+2, I hope your right because it would be very stupid to build 2+2 sandwiched in between two dual carriageways which will be 2 motorways in time after redesignation

mysterious

tech2 wrote: »

Type II between 2 dual carriageways/motorway makes absolutely no sense.
I think the NRA are making a complete f**kup aswell puttin the Enniscorthy Bypass scheme ahead of the M20 in the new reformed announcment of the PPP's.

The motorway network will not have the correct balance we need the M20/M18/M17 to connect the other cities as well as having the inter urban routes going to Dublin.

Adare bypass is needed now.


Not tomorrow NOW.

The M20 is needed now

Not tomorrow NOW.

Who the **** is runnning the NRA?:mad:

murphaph

tech2 wrote: »

I think mysterious is right on this though, why bulid a 3+3 lane bridge when a upgrade will probably be needed to 4+4 in the not so distant future. Build a bridge capable of 4+4 but keep it 3+3 until the upgrade is taking place on the rest of the route to the M50. The NRA have been p*ssing our money away long enough now on upgrading roads they built just a few years ago and then upgrading them again to match the current traffic levels.

The only major road widenning to have taken place so far in Ireland are the M50 and N7 projects. Neither of these roads were designed by the NRA (which was only created as a legal entity in 1993!). We can blame the NRA for a lot of things but they have gotten their act together with their contracts after a false start or two and they certainly can't be blamed for the M50 and even less so the N7. I'm sure the NRA would have prefered the offline M7 option but were forced to upgrade online (in time for the Ryder Cup) to speed up the process (little land aquisition). The NRA's only major failing now is really the signage issue. If the rest of government negotiated contracts as well as the NRA does today we'd actually save a lot of money overall.

Tech3

murphaph wrote: »

The only major road widenning to have taken place so far in Ireland are the M50 and N7 projects. Neither of these roads were designed by the NRA (which was only created as a legal entity in 1993!). We can blame the NRA for a lot of things but they have gotten their act together with their contracts after a false start or two and they certainly can't be blamed for the M50 and even less so the N7. I'm sure the NRA would have prefered the offline M7 option but were forced to upgrade online (in time for the Ryder Cup) to speed up the process (little land aquisition). The NRA's only major failing now is really the signage issue. If the rest of government negotiated contracts as well as the NRA does today we'd actually save a lot of money overall.

I didnt know the previous M50 and N7 were not designed by the NRA, actually they had a lot to do I guess upgrading these correctly from the mess they had to start with. I agree they are a lot more organised now but the amount of money wasted in the past is not to be forgotten. The motorway network should have been rolled out alot quicker thus not needing to bypass every town with single carriageway roads which wasted so much tax payers money.

Chris_533976

murphaph wrote: »

The NRA's only major failing now is really the signage issue.

Also any time any two DCs/Motorways have to join. (many examples)
And the fact that Limerick SRR #2 is narrow median.
Also how the M7 to the M7/M8 split is narrow median.

murphaph

Chris_533976 wrote: »

Also any time any two DCs/Motorways have to join. (many examples)
And the fact that Limerick SRR #2 is narrow median.
Also how the M7 to the M7/M8 split is narrow median.

All of these can be explained by budgetary constraints and again, the NRA is responsible for only a handful of dodgy motorway-motorway junctions, the rest were designed and/or built before the NRA existed. The Cork NRR will have a proper freeflow interchange to the M8/N20 by all accounts so they seem to want to avoid another M50 here. I'm not here to defend the NRA-I have a HUGE problem with their attitude towards signage but the difference between narrow and wide median is many hundreds of acres of extra land which must be paid for by someone. M7 narrow median to the M7/M8 split is perhaps a little short sighted but I'd rather they spend the money saved on a widening of the M7 from Naas to the M9 split. To me that's the obvious one.

The NRA don't operate outside the reach of interfering politicians as well, unfortunately.

mysterious

murphaph wrote: »

The only major road widenning to have taken place so far in Ireland are the M50 and N7 projects. Neither of these roads were designed by the NRA (which was only created as a legal entity in 1993!). We can blame the NRA for a lot of things but they have gotten their act together with their contracts after a false start or two and they certainly can't be blamed for the M50 and even less so the N7. I'm sure the NRA would have prefered the offline M7 option but were forced to upgrade online (in time for the Ryder Cup) to speed up the process (little land aquisition). The NRA's only major failing now is really the signage issue. If the rest of government negotiated contracts as well as the NRA does today we'd actually save a lot of money overall.

Yes look at the millions they wasted on doing an overjob at resurfacing the M7 Naas bypass when people were asking for the bypass to be widened before the resurfacing.......

On top of this, it's no excuse you have now three motorways joining the M7 to Dublin. The road standard is not acceptable. Th NRA sdcc seems to miss this fact. If both were smart they would have designed the nelands cross to 4x4 with HS in the first place. SDCC, should seriously look into building a distrubuter road from Monastery flyover to Newlands as part of their redevelopment plan.

If they want to build high rise developments on this gateway route. They are going to have to take infrastructure more seriously here. This N7 section is a ****ing mess. Its the busiest route in the country and a half arse job is not good enough. Not now and not in the future either.


**** the recession. Recessions are ****ing illusions created by the eltes. Build it right and build it right.


3X3 is not acceptable from Citywest to The M50. Traffic levels will increase on this stretch.

• The downturn is leveling off
• The inter urbans finishing in 2010
• The M50 Upgrade finished in 2010
• Citywest industrial expansion
• Towns like Naas, Rathcoole, Kill, Newbridge, Portlaoise are still growth towns along the M7.

The route carries 89,000 after Newlands. And at least 95,000 from Newlands to Redcow. 3X3 is not sufficient. The design of any type of road here should be at least 4x4.


Lets spend the money wisely and more effiicently. On top of that, it also saves money so we don't have to go back 10 years later and make fix the knob that this interchange is.

mysterious

tech2 wrote: »

I think mysterious is right on this though, why bulid a 3+3 lane bridge when a upgrade will probably be needed to 4+4 in the not so distant future. Build a bridge capable of 4+4 but keep it 3+3 until the upgrade is taking place on the rest of the route to the M50. The NRA have been p*ssing our money away long enough now on upgrading roads they built just a few years ago and then upgrading them again to match the current traffic levels.

4X4 is already needed thats the thing people are missing.


If you were to build a motorway that would carry 95,000 cars a day in design year. You would have it built to 4x4. There is no question about it. This would be the case.


I think some SDCC councillors need to be sacked.

SEND. I said it. Sacked.

Stan_D

mysterious wrote: »

it does not have a design year of 2024, where the **** was that stated.


I don't like bull**** in print.


Trafic at the bridge is 90,000 a day. its at capacity already. When it opens in 2011 like the inter urbans traffic willl shortly reach 100,000.

The previous design was designed to a minimal upgrade with little to no landtake. This kind of bull**** is not acceptable. The Car sales room is now derelict and should be knocked down and incoporated into the interchange.


Let's not make a **** up again here. Build a proper interchange. It doesn't cost anything more to give extra space for widening.

Actually the design year was 2025. Modelling was done based on 2024 and extrapolated to 2025 (source: 2007 EIS).

Your ideas on existing traffic flows are way off. On the N7 west of Newlands 2005 "existing" flow is 56,462 AADT (source: 2008 Preliminary Design Report). This figure came from traffic count survey data. The past and present problems on the N7 at this location have nothing to do with link capacity: it is junction capacity at Newlands that is causing a bottleneck on the system.

The proposed scheme is designed based on 84,376 AADT for the year 2025 (source: 2007 EIS). There will not be a problem with link capacity on the N7 for a 3+3 as long as the DTO's traffic model proves correct. If the traffic predictions do turn out to be wrong, then the M50 junction will be stuffed and we'll have a much bigger problem. The "outer ring" motorway scheme may get legs before this happens.

If the NRA had decided to go for a 4+4, there is no way the scheme could have got through Planning. Landowners would have an extremely strong case for rejection of the scheme on the basis that the traffic data clearly shows that a 3+3 would work and that the extra landtake necessary for a 4+4 is unjustified.

mysterious

Stan_D wrote: »

Actually the design year was 2025. Modelling was done based on 2024 and extrapolated to 2025 (source: 2007 EIS).

Your ideas on existing traffic flows are way off. On the N7 west of Newlands 2005 "existing" flow is 56,462 AADT (source: 2008 Preliminary Design Report). This figure came from traffic count survey data. The past and present problems on the N7 at this location have nothing to do with link capacity: it is junction capacity at Newlands that is causing a bottleneck on the system.

The proposed scheme is designed based on 84,376 AADT for the year 2025 (source: 2007 EIS). There will not be a problem with link capacity on the N7 for a 3+3 as long as the DTO's traffic model proves correct. If the traffic predictions do turn out to be wrong, then the M50 junction will be stuffed and we'll have a much bigger problem. The "outer ring" motorway scheme may get legs before this happens.

If the NRA had decided to go for a 4+4, there is no way the scheme could have got through Planning. Landowners would have an extremely strong case for rejection of the scheme on the basis that the traffic data clearly shows that a 3+3 would work and that the extra landtake necessary for a 4+4 is unjustified.

Do you work for Sdcc. I get the feeling you do. Cus the bull**** detector just went off.



The existing flow is not 56,000.
Did you pick that out of poetry book.


The N7 At Kill, 70,000 so Work it out. On this topic nobody knows better than me;) So I suggest you tear up that report you have right now. Rathcoole and City West its 89.000. Redow is close to a 100,000. Traffic on the N7 from Naas to Dublin climbs dramatically. The existing counter before the Naas upgrade was 62,000 a day. That was 3 years ago. You mean to tell me your figures are correct. They are not they are way off and just bull**** figures.

The traffic flows are 90,000 a day at Newlands cross.


And growing.
That report you have is so wrong its a joke.


Please don't try put up a misleading argument on this because your going to be shown up.

mysterious

Stan_D wrote: »

If the NRA had decided to go for a 4+4, there is no way the scheme could have got through Planning. Landowners would have an extremely strong case for rejection of the scheme on the basis that the traffic data clearly shows that a 3+3 would work and that the extra landtake necessary for a 4+4 is unjustified.

Rofl.....

This sort of cack, you just could is good for entertainment. But for reality no.

Bards

mysterious wrote: »

Do you work for Sdcc. I get the feeling you do. Cus the bull**** detector just went off.



The existing flow is not 56,000.
Did you pick that out of poetry book.


The N7 At Kill, 65,000 so Work it out. On this topic nobody knows better than me;) So I suggest you tear up that report you have right now. Rathcoole and City West its 89.000. Redow is close to a 100,000. Traffic on the N7 from Naas to Dublin climbs dramatically. The existing counter before the Naas upgrade was 62,000 a day. That was 3 years ago. You mean to tell me your figures are correct. They are not they are way off and just bull**** figures.

The traffic flows are 90,000 a day at Newlands cross.


And growing.
That report you have is so wrong its a joke.


Please don't try put up a misleading argument on this because your going to be shown up.

where is your data to back up your claims?

Is it the same sort of data out of the air as your claim with regards to the amount of tractors that use the Athlone Bypass on a daily basis. So unless you can substantiate your claim then it is BS

murphaph

mysterious wrote: »

Do you work for Sdcc. I get the feeling you do. Cus the bull**** detector just went off.



The existing flow is not 56,000.
Did you pick that out of poetry book.


The N7 At Kill, 65,000 so Work it out. On this topic nobody knows better than me;) So I suggest you tear up that report you have right now. Rathcoole and City West its 89.000. Redow is close to a 100,000. Traffic on the N7 from Naas to Dublin climbs dramatically. The existing counter before the Naas upgrade was 62,000 a day. That was 3 years ago. You mean to tell me your figures are correct. They are not they are way off and just bull**** figures.

The traffic flows are 90,000 a day at Newlands cross.


And growing.
That report you have is so wrong its a joke.


Please don't try put up a misleading argument on this because your going to be shown up.

Stan gave a source for his figures. Can you show me yours so I can take a look and see what's what?