N7/N11 Newlands Cross & Arklow to Rathnew

Bards

mysterious wrote: »

Downturn isn't really affecting the roads.

Traffic is still rising, and it will on approach roads to Dublin. With the upgrade of the M50 and inter urbans you can expect newlands to rise drastically when the bridge is put in


I will prove murphaph wrong yet again,(not that I give a damn about been right)

I am sick of this non future proofed infrastructure projects we keep building.

Hysterious you really are hilarious

NedNew

... it was decided to simply close the median at Newlands Cross? Would this be a better temporary solution than the current traffic light set-up?

• Thus N7 traffic would simply carry straight through the junction.
• Traffic from Tallaght would join the N7 southbound, using the Kingswood interchange to u-turn citybound if required (only 90 seconds jounrey from Newlands).
• Traffic from Clondalkin would join the the N7 city bound, using the new Bow bridge (P+R Luas) to u-turn southbound if required.
• N7 South to Clondalkin u-turn at Kingswood
• N7 North to Tallaght exit at Kingswood to Tallaght or u-turn at Bow Bridge (P+R Luas)

Apologies if this idea has been already discussed.

L1011

Even for one affected movement - N7 inbound to Tallaght - Kingswood can't take the load, nor could the bowstring. Nor could they if split. The route in to the bits of Tallaght that Belgard Road serves from Kingswood is winding through the Cookstown Industrial Estate too.

Not an option.

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

What I intentionally said the counter is east of newlands is above the figure of 79.000 (which is the west figure)

That sentence doesn't make any sense AT ALL. You said the counter was east of Newlands, then you said it was west of Newlands. You never said anything along the lines of "the figure is higher east, because this is west" - you said the counter WAS east.

Give it up. You're so horrifically caught out on this one its not funny. The traffic that would go OVER the bridge isn't anywhere close to the 90,000 you claim it is - and it is solely the traffic OVER the bridge that determines what width it needs to be.

murphaph

mysterious wrote: »

What I intentionally said the counter is east of newlands is above the figure of 79.000 (which is the west figure)

What? Do you mean...

What I intented to say is that the count east of newlands would be above the figure of 79.000 (which is the west figure)

?

If so, you cannot complain that nobody undertsood what you were tryng to say because that was not what you actually wrote. You may have intended to say it but it was so poorly written that EVERYONE here seems to have read it in the way I did. You should slow down before typing and re-read your posts and perhaps we won't get sidetracked because of them being totally incomprehensible. That's enough about that.

So you are still supposing that more traffic joins the N7 Eastbound at Newlands than leaves it? You haven't listened to a single word anyone has told you about the amount of vehicles heading into Tallaght from the Naas Road every morning. Even if the figure for NX-Red Cow was 170k it would be irrelevant to the width of the bridge so long as it has enough capacity to carry the volume of traffic that passes right through NX along the N7. Turning traffic does not need to be catered for by the bridge deck! It will pass underneath or not at all! Traffic joining the N7 from the R113 WILL NOT USE THE BRIDGE and traffic leaving the N7 for the R113 WILL NOT USE THE BRIDGE ! That's a lot of traffic from the 79k figure (just west of NX) that can be subtracted to work out how much capacity is actually required to span the junction. It is not simply the number of vehicles which pass through the junction, it is specifically the number of vehicles which pass through the junction using ONLY the N7.

mysterious

murphaph wrote: »

What? Do you mean...
?

If so, you cannot complain that nobody undertsood what you were tryng to say because that was not what you actually wrote. You may have intended to say it but it was so poorly written that EVERYONE here seems to have read it in the way I did. You should slow down before typing and re-read your posts and perhaps we won't get sidetracked because of them being totally incomprehensible. That's enough about that.

So you are still supposing that more traffic joins the N7 Eastbound at Newlands than leaves it? You haven't listened to a single word anyone has told you about the amount of vehicles heading into Tallaght from the Naas Road every morning. Even if the figure for NX-Red Cow was 170k it would be irrelevant to the width of the bridge so long as it has enough capacity to carry the volume of traffic that passes right through NX along the N7. Turning traffic does not need to be catered for by the bridge deck! It will pass underneath or not at all! Traffic joining the N7 from the R113 WILL NOT USE THE BRIDGE and traffic leaving the N7 for the R113 WILL NOT USE THE BRIDGE ! That's a lot of traffic from the 79k figure (just west of NX) that can be subtracted to work out how much capacity is actually required to span the junction. It is not simply the number of vehicles which pass through the junction, it is specifically the number of vehicles which pass through the junction using ONLY the N7.

But in other countries they would put a 4 lane each way bridge here regardless.

But your rants prove idiotic

Just like the Monastery road traffic lights
Just like the Turnpike traffic lights and other such crap.

Constant short sightness


I'm well aware of the traffic that heads towards Tallaght, but I'm also aware of the amount of traffic that comes from Clondalkin side to the N7 east too. I'm also aware that traffic exceeds 80,000. I'm also aware that you build road to a 20 year period.

So if it is about 85,000 now, it should of the capacity of 120,000 for the design year.

The Kinsale interchange overbridge has traffic levels half this and it has a 6 lanes bridge with HS See how they can build roads with a long future ahead. In fact the Kinsale bridge can easily widen the bridge in the future. But it's not needed since the road capacity is less than have than its capactiy.


Your short sighteness is almost obsessive.


I would love if the adminstrators of boards could pull of the 4 year old argument we had where you stated that the monastery road at grade was ok in the upgrade:D

BluntGuy

mysterious wrote: »

The Kinsale interchange overbridge has traffic levels half this and it has a 6 lanes bridge with HS See how they can build roads with a long future ahead. In fact the Kinsale bridge can easily widen the bridge in the future. But it's not needed since the road capacity is less than have than its capactiy.

Err... what? How could they easily widen the Kinsale Interchange bridge?

And it doesn't have a hard shoulder.

Could we stick to the facts please?

mysterious

murphaph wrote: »

What? Do you mean...

Even if the figure for NX-Red Cow was 170k it would be irrelevant to the width of the bridge so long as it has enough capacity to carry the volume of traffic that passes right through NX along the N7.

So your argument is like


In 1969 traffic for a 3 lane bridge is at 79k

We build a bridge in 1975 for a bridge of 79K

We make sure we keep the bridge 3 lanes regardless, just for the sake of the current traffic levels.


What are you going to say when I've proven you wrong again? When we have economy picking up in a few years, when we have the M50 completed, the interurbans and growth along citywest etc.

Spend another 10million widening the bridge.????

When it can be done now in the fraction of that cost. Just a wider bridge deck, even if they still go ahead with 3 lanes(which is stupid imo) they can still leave room for a future lane, but I'm sure you still are so short sighted you probably wouldnt see the benifet of that.:D

Its the same bull**** argument with the M50 southeastern motorway when it opened in the early 00s.

The contractor gave the council a proposal of building the M50 with 3 lanes each way with a fraction of the cost of a 2 lane motorway. The council rejected it, and now they are diggiing it up wasting more money and spending more money to put the extra lane in.

mysterious

BluntGuy wrote: »

Err... what? How could they easily widen the Kinsale Interchange bridge?

And it doesn't have a hard shoulder.

Could we stick to the facts please?

I looked at google earth and I could see it with my own eyes.

childoforpheus

mysterious wrote: »

I looked at google earth and I could see it with my own eyes.

Westbound has a hard shoulder and two lanes, eastbound has three lanes and no hard shoulder.
Link:http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.87348,-8.470118&spn=0.00038,0.0012&t=h&z=20

BluntGuy

mysterious wrote: »

I looked at google earth and I could see it with my own eyes.

Here's a picture taken by me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cork_South_Ring_Flyover_2.JPG

Could you point out where the hard shoulder is?

Does it look like it could be widened?

Like I said, stick to the facts.

The Word Is Bor

hysterious wrote: »

But in other countries they would put a 4 lane each way bridge here regardless.

We are not talking about other countries here. I'm sure they can back up their design with AADT's that don't come from the ravings of somebody on t'interweb.

hysterious wrote:

But your rants prove idiotic.

Can you define irony?

hysterious wrote:

I'm well aware of the traffic that heads towards Tallaght, but I'm also aware of the amount of traffic that comes from Clondalkin side to the N7 east too. I'm also aware that traffic exceeds 80,000. I'm also aware that you build road to a 20 year period.

So if it is about 85,000 now, it should of the capacity of 120,000 for the design year.

You were asked to justify your ludicrous assertion of 90k vehicles. You have not done so. Please stop using these figures if you don't have the ability to back them up. You say that you are aware of traffic leaving/joining the proposed N7 that will not use the bridge yet you still persist with your ludicrous assertion on AADT.

hysterious wrote:

The Kinsale interchange overbridge has traffic levels half this and it has a 6 lanes bridge with HS See how they can build roads with a long future ahead. In fact the Kinsale bridge can easily widen the bridge in the future. But it's not needed since the road capacity is less than have than its capactiy.

The Magic Roundabout flyover has three lanes eastbound with no hard shoulder. The westbound side has two lanes with a hard shoulder. Hard to see it being easily widened save for removing the westbound hard shoulder and replacing that with a running lane. I thought you had a thing about hard shoulders?:rolleyes:

hysterious wrote:

Your short sighteness is almost obsessive.

Again a definition of irony would be handy.

mysterious

BluntGuy wrote: »

Here's a picture taken by me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cork_South_Ring_Flyover_2.JPG

Could you point out where the hard shoulder is?

Does it look like it could be widened?

Like I said, stick to the facts.

It was pointed out above.

I also stated the road has space to be widened on its side i.e put bridge decking on its adjacent side but thats not the topic anyhow. I was merely stating the road has traffic levels far lower than the Newlands flyover yet they managed to put a 6 lane bridge here.

Newlands has traffic sufficient enough for a 8 lane bridge, or at least defenatly in the next 10 years. The amount of traffic that currently avoids this blackspot will easily prove this. The M50 actually had zero and even minus growth for 3/4 years prior to the upgrade, and since the upgradeat least 20,000 vehicles had been put back on this road since there is extra lanes etc.

I was just using the Kinsale road as example where they realised that mainline traffic is better with 6 lanes rather than 3 lanes because the Kinsale junction has much lesser traffic than Newlands.

murphaph

mysterious wrote: »

I looked at google earth and I could see it with my own eyes.

I think this is basically the problem with most of your posts. You sit at a distance and google earth everything and assume you are au fait enough with the junction/road/whatever to design it better than engineers (who must sadly operate in the real world with budgets and things like that).

mysterious wrote:

I'm well aware of the traffic that heads towards Tallaght, but I'm also aware of the amount of traffic that comes from Clondalkin side to the N7 east too. I'm also aware that traffic exceeds 80,000. I'm also aware that you build road to a 20 year period.

Aaarrghh! Traffic joining at Clondalkin and heading eastbound will HAVE NO EFFECT on the bridge design itself. IT WILL NOT USE THE BRIDGE MYSTERIOUS!

The only figure that matters wrt the bridge capacity (ie how many lanes it has) is the number of vehicles that travel from west of NX to east of NX. Traffic leaving the N7 at NX reduces the capacity requirement. Traffic entering at NX has NO EFFECT on the capacity requirement of the bridge (but does on the on slips which also have to be incorporated in the design and the wider the bridge, the more land must be acquired for onslips (and offslips).

The Word Is Bor

Hysterious, why don't you have a read of this?

Traffic at the Magic Roundabout was 87.5k in 1999.

L1011

Mysterious wants the bridge over NX to have no hard shoulders so it can have 8 running lanes
Mysterious wants the N7 to become motorway along its current alignment
Mysterious has a fetish with insisting every linear inch of motorway has hard shoulders

Anyone notice a MASSIVE failure in reasoning here?

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

Mysterious wants the bridge over NX to have no hard shoulders so it can have 8 running lanes
Mysterious wants the N7 to become motorway along its current alignment
Mysterious has a fetish with insisting every linear inch of motorway has hard shoulders

Anyone notice a MASSIVE failure in reasoning here?

Myob i know what I want.

I don't want you to be making insinuations all the time of my own needs and wants.

It's obvious
MYOB and Murpaph are trying to provoke me with such desperation.

It's not working:P

mysterious

murphaph wrote: »

I think this is basically the problem with most of your posts. You sit at a distance and google earth everything and assume you are au fait enough with the junction/road/whatever to design it better than engineers (who must sadly operate in the real world with budgets and things like that).

No... actually I just don't need to depend on others to see a solution.


That's the difference between you and me.
You depend on other's for a solution
I don't.

Aaarrghh! Traffic joining at Clondalkin and heading eastbound will HAVE NO EFFECT on the bridge design itself. IT WILL NOT USE THE BRIDGE MYSTERIOUS!

Traffic in Greece will have no effect either.

The only figure that matters wrt the bridge capacity (ie how many lanes it has) is the number of vehicles that travel from west of NX to east of NX. Traffic leaving the N7 at NX reduces the capacity requirement. Traffic entering at NX has NO EFFECT on the capacity requirement of the bridge (but does on the on slips which also have to be incorporated in the design and the wider the bridge, the more land must be acquired for onslips (and offslips).

You have between 80,000 and 100,000 average using the Redcow to NX.

You can still take 15,000 of it, and you still have 75,000 cars going straight through the junction. I'm not stating that traffic will be full once opened.


II'm saying this road should have a design capacity far greater than the current traffic levels. Adding an extra lane or providing room is not in the least illogical at all. Bridge's of this nature throughout Europe especially near cities are always have wider cross section in allowing more lanes where traffic is likely to grow


When the M50 and inter urbans are completed along with the traffic that currently avoids NX it will be obvious traffic will rise far greater here than other sections of N7 once the NX junction is upgraded.

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

Myob i know what I want.

I don't want you to be making insinuations all the time of my own needs and wants.

It's obvious
MYOB and Murpaph are trying to provoke me with such desperation.

It's not working:P

No, we're trying to ensure that anyone who accidentally wanders in here gets the impression instantly that you're discredited and doesn't actually believe anything you claim, scribble or scream about.

mysterious

Double post.

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

No, we're trying to ensure that anyone who accidentally wanders in here gets the impression instantly that you're discredited and doesn't actually believe anything you claim, scribble or scream about.

Your not the one to tell me anything.

We all are here too post our opinions, facts and info on this board. I'm making sure you ouggta be more self aware and more self conscious how you project.

Everyone else will worry of their own interaction here.;)

Carawaystick

The Word Is Bor wrote: »

Hysterious, why don't you have a read of this?

Traffic at the Magic Roundabout was 87.5k in 1999.

In fairness, that was the total traffic on the rab, which has 2 dual carriageways leading to it, along with the Kinsale road from Turner's Cross.

The N25 carried 40% of the traffic according to the doc you quoted.

The Word Is Bor

Carawaystick wrote: »

In fairness, that was the total traffic on the rab, which has 2 dual carriageways leading to it, along with the Kinsale road from Turner's Cross.

The N25 carried 40% of the traffic according to the doc you quoted.

The point is if you just look at AADT then you're missing the salient point. It had an AADT of 87.5k 10 years ago. They grade separated the traffic by the use of, essentially a two lane dual carriageway to free flow straight through traffic. Hysterious constant whining about 90k vehicles at Newlands X neglects to take into account the traffic to/from R113 and to/from Belgard Road.
The whole point is to free flow a junction and remove non N7-N7 traffic.

Steviemak

MYOB wrote: »

No, we're trying to ensure that anyone who accidentally wanders in here gets the impression instantly that you're discredited and doesn't actually believe anything you claim, scribble or scream about.

You have no worries there. I'm just surprised he gets so much interaction. I gave up a long time ago.

murphaph

Steviemak wrote: »

You have no worries there. I'm just surprised he gets so much interaction. I gave up a long time ago.

Maybe an en-masse "ignore button" pressing ceremony should be held

mysterious

I came up with the best way to sort out all the traffic movements for all commuters.

• This design allows N7 traffic to move freely without heavy weaving or local traffic funnelling onto this merging busy section of N7.
• It makes the road safe for all users including pedestrians and cyclists
• It removes the need for private acesses onto the main N7 DC
• Removes the dangerous LILO just immediately after the Redcow
• Better traffic management
• Opens up development for the south quadrant of the N7 road.
• It will ease pressure off the Joels lane
• Free flowing slip for westbound from M50 directly to the luas

The best way to widen the existing carriegway, is simple there is need for extra land take at all just discard the Wide path and cylcle lane which will be transferred onto the distributor local road. There is now at least 5metre clearance for widening. The Median to be closed and put the The 3.5 running lane which is the belgard slip and the remaining clearance and grass verge on the median will be used to put the fourth lane on the NB section.

You can see it on the map below.


I will put the design layout of the Newlands junction at a later stage.

biffoman

gud lad u do that:o

murphaph

mysterious wrote: »

Oh God. Do you have any idea how much that would cost? The warehouse would become useless overnight as you couldn't manouvre any trucks into/out of the loading bays!! You'd have to CPO the whole site!!



Before Mysterious:


After Mysterious:


In a nutshell: Long legal battles with property owner and a huge amount of expense to the taxpayer!

Edit: I just noticed you said "no extra land take". Completely untrue and you know it! That distributor road of yours is clearly built on PRIVATE land!

mysterious

That road you put is well exaggerated, for your drawn in road is nearly as wide as the main N7 for christ sake. And you could put the road right up to N7 boundary if it were tight. If it were to be too costly you could take out the HS/Bus lane for this stretch of 50m. The width of the N7 is generally wider as Joels lane is widens at this point. My point is it can be done. You are the first one on this forum to shot anything to down. You have to realise that.

Murphaph you shot everysingle plan down I have put up in the past. Always pessimistic, short sighted, and unimaginative and unambitious. You remind me of someone who would sit and moan and leave things the way they are rather than coming up with a solution. Instead of actually working with someobody on a solution you would be the first to criticise it.

Your idealogy would be this
It's not possible.
Its too costly
It can't be built
It's takes to much time
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh it's fine.

The Monastery roads traffic lights is finnnnnnnnnnnnne
The Turnpike traffic lights is finnnnnnnnnnnnnnnne
The Longmile junction is finnnnnnnnnnnnnnnne


No point planning for the future doooooooooooooo and glooooooooooooooom.

Shrugs shoulders. It cost money why bother. Why bother do anything. Ah feck it sure if there is a CPO to be done that's just to complicated and just stick to do nothing scenerio life is just fupping fantastic when we sit and just plug out the brain.

mysterious

• The Blue is the extra landtake
• The yellow is the bus/cycle/path
• The red is the general road
• Purple is the land area
• Pink is the Median

Basically its not impossible or as extensive as it looks. The actual distrubuter road would beniefet the business because it give the premises direct access to the Luas/Monastery road interchange both ways and thus allowing traffic to go N7 east and M50 North directly from the Monastery road flyover. They could even use verges on the other side of the interchange if it were really difficult.


The removal, of pavement,bus lane, cycle lane and median/verges will allow more free space, there is a verge of 5 to 10 metres that is between the actual N6 and the boundary of the premises. It's the extra landtake would be the CPO side of things. But it would give a good overall clearance for a 7.5metre road, and the effect would be minimal.