M7 - Naas/Newbridge Bypass Upgrade [Junction 9a now open]

jkgvfg

http://www.kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/PressReleasesAdverts/M7ProjectUpdate.html

speedfreak

Summer 2020 for 9a and Sallins bypass. FFS.

GhostyMcGhost

Absolute ****show

100% that mid feb target will be missed (again and again)

Nobody is paying any heed to 80kmph anyhow

fullstop

What a ****ing joke. New exit sitting ready since end of November and won’t open till the summer?!

Cazale

speedfreak wrote:

Summer 2020 for 9a and Sallins bypass. FFS.

Irish summer or Australian summer?

pad199207

Absolute joke. I’ll go out and move the barriers and cones myself on Junction 9a.

WishUWereHere

I’m from Newbridge & drive cross country to Leixlip every morning.

This morning, I had to first go to Carlow, then come back up the M9/M7. There was a massive queue to come off at J10. Is this normal (this was around 08h30) or was it because of the collision further up the N7? That queue had to be at least 1km long and was nullifying the inner of the 3 lanes heading for Dublin.

_Kaiser_

fullstop wrote: »

What a ****ing joke. New exit sitting ready since end of November and won’t open till the summer?!

I've said it all before. This entire project has been a mess of poor planning, poor communication and extremely poor delivery since the first day they started erecting barriers.

Even the quality of the finish is shockingly poor and even dangerous in places.

I look forward to hearing how we don't understand the situation and should keep our mouth shut :rolleyes:

traco

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Multiple vehicle collision. Not surprising considerng how people use our roads

I was heading southbound to my office and passed that at around 6:40am (14 Jan). I only glanced one car, seemed like a large saloon and it was very badly damaged so assume it was a fairly high speed accident.


I was amazed though that at that time it was rapidly backing up back to the castlewarden exit. The inbound volume on that road from 6:30am on is immense.

WhatsGoingOn2

Why didn't they finish Junction 10 before Junction 9a since 9a is not opening for months?

BuzzFish

WhatsGoingOn2 wrote: »

Why didn't they finish Junction 10 before Junction 9a since 9a is not opening for months?

Who knows. Absolute disgrace is J10. Cars driving the wrong way on a junction with no lighting. Someone is going to get hurt.

veryangryman

BuzzFish wrote: »

Who knows. Absolute disgrace is J10. Cars driving the wrong way on a junction with no lighting. Someone is going to get hurt.

Im finding that lights at Motorway junctions are becoming a "luxury item" these days

Kamili

veryangryman wrote: »

Im finding that lights at Motorway junctions are becoming a "luxury item" these days

yep - Irish times says we can't afford them and they are not "green"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/lights-switched-off-at-motorway-junctions-in-bid-to-cut-electricity-bill-by-1m-a-year-1.3721543

Lighting has been dimmed, or turned off at many of the State’s motorway junctions by Transport Infrastructure Ireland in a move that will cut electricity bills by €1 million a year....


...... Cost was not was the overriding reason, said the State agency, though the changes were spurred by the need to comply with a 2012 EU energy policy that requires Ireland to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

veryangryman

Kamili wrote: »

yep - Irish times says we can't afford them and they are not "green"

I guess that the dead bodies from any imminent accidents due to these closures will be good for vegetation and the soil so he's got a point, however silly.

_Kaiser_

Kamili wrote: »

yep - Irish times says we can't afford them and they are not "green"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/lights-switched-off-at-motorway-junctions-in-bid-to-cut-electricity-bill-by-1m-a-year-1.3721543

It's a ridiculous policy that will cause a serious accident yet IMO. There's plenty of money wasted in this country. Go after that before putting people's lives at risk.

Emme

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I've said it all before. This entire project has been a mess of poor planning, poor communication and extremely poor delivery since the first day they started erecting barriers.

Even the quality of the finish is shockingly poor and even dangerous in places.

I look forward to hearing how we don't understand the situation and should keep our mouth shut :rolleyes:

I pointed out that the project was a mess earlier and got shot down for it. "Ah shure they're working flat out, it will be ready by Christmas 2019 at the latest." Now we're told we'll have to wait until summer 2020 until it's finished. If they're telling us that I won't hold my breath for a Christmas 2020 finish.

This entire project should be used as a project management case study of how NOT to manage a project!

Cazale

WhatsGoingOn2 wrote:

Why didn't they finish Junction 10 before Junction 9a since 9a is not opening for months?

Very good point.

Mantis Toboggan

WhatsGoingOn2 wrote: »

Why didn't they finish Junction 10 before Junction 9a since 9a is not opening for months?

Because that would have made too much sense!

harr

Another cop out saying summer 2020 when in the summer... what contractor would get away with saying

“ ah sure might have it finished sometime over the summer “

Summer is 3 months long FFS ... on it today no workers at all on main stretch so why in gods name do they need it restricted to 80.
No workers at all around J10 it’s the same as it was weeks ago. Why pull all the workers off a major intersection like J10 when it isn’t near finished. Just get one part finished and then start the next bit. Like poster mentioned above why finish J9a to such a high standard and leave it close and open J10 which is in ****e ..
Contractor should be docked a percentage for every week they miss a deadline...

Kamili

Kamili wrote: »

yep - Irish times says we can't afford them and they are not "green"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/lights-switched-off-at-motorway-junctions-in-bid-to-cut-electricity-bill-by-1m-a-year-1.3721543

veryangryman wrote: »

I guess that the dead bodies from any imminent accidents due to these closures will be good for vegetation and the soil so he's got a point, however silly.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's a ridiculous policy that will cause a serious accident yet IMO. There's plenty of money wasted in this country. Go after that before putting people's lives at risk.

https://www.tii.ie/news/press-releases/Motorway-junction-lighting/Technical-Information-Note-Energy-Reduction-for-TII-WEbsite.docx.pdf

No-need for fear-mongering or misunderstanding of what the policy is when a simple google search provides this as one of the top results.

WishUWereHere

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Because that would have made too much sense!

Cannot wait until the prospective politicians come looking for my vote.

veryangryman

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.tii.ie/news/press-releases/Motorway-junction-lighting/Technical-Information-Note-Energy-Reduction-for-TII-WEbsite.docx.pdf

No-need for fear-mongering or misunderstanding of what the policy is when a simple google search provides this as one of the top results.

Ok i've just read it. They quietly gave less than a year and decided that was that and washed their hands of the situation.

As a driver it tends to add to the stress of a journey having lights removed. And as other posters have shown, i'm not the only one who thinks it is a lazy box ticking exercise policy that makes a journey more dangerous for a road user.

They didnt put the lights in originally for the laugh lads.

veryangryman

veryangryman wrote: »

Ok i've just read it. They quietly gave less than a year and decided that was that and washed their hands of the situation.

And if they had taken more than a year you and others would no doubt be bemoaning the slow pace of bureaucracy and demanding to know how it could take so long.

As a driver it tends to add to the stress of a journey having lights removed.

How does a motorway going from dark to lit for a short period to dark "add to stress" exactly? Our medical understanding of how eye's work state the opposite.

And as other posters have shown, i'm not the only one who thinks it is a lazy box ticking exercise policy that makes a journey more dangerous for a road user.

Sure, you can be another road user committing a post-hoc fallacy. "I don't like it so it must be dangerous".

They didnt put the lights in originally for the laugh lads.

No, they put in the extra lights because they used the pre-2006 UK system. Which if you had read the linked report, you would know.

They changed the lights in junctions built after 2007, because the UK had changed to the current system already. Which if you had read the linked report, you would know.

Any research they found (3rd party) or carried out themselves found no adverse affects to the changes. Which if you had read the linked report, you would know.

There's a running theme here.

"TII now has the benefit of data from about 40 junctions of each type i.e Conflict Areas and mainline fully lit and a similar number with lighting at Conflict Areas only over the period circa 2007 to 2018 and can conclude that the additional lighting of the mainline at motorway/dual carriageway junctions does not improve operational road safety when compared with those junctions where the mainline is unlit;" vs "I think it's dangerous just because".

hi5

If our masters in the UK do then we must doff our caps and follow suit, isn't 'best practice' a great little term.
Anyway I thought there was an excess of electricity at night, what with all those wind turbines pumping out megawatts with nowhere to go.

Sam Russell

hi5 wrote: »

If our masters in the UK do then we must doff our caps and follow suit, isn't 'best practice' a great little term.
Anyway I thought there was an excess of electricity at night, what with all those wind turbines pumping out megawatts with nowhere to go.

When do e cars get charged? At night.

When did e cars get charged in 1976? They didn't - there weren't any.

LED lights use up to about 10% of the electricity of the lights they replace.

Vehicles are equipped with their own lights. Street lights in urban areas are for pedestrians, not vehicles. There should be no pedestrians on motorways.

Just some thoughts.

tom1ie

Deleted User wrote: »

And if they had taken more than a year you and others would no doubt be bemoaning the slow pace of bureaucracy and demanding to know how it could take so long.



How does a motorway going from dark to lit for a short period to dark "add to stress" exactly? Our medical understanding of how eye's work state the opposite.


Sure, you can be another road user committing a post-hoc fallacy. "I don't like it so it must be dangerous".


No, they put in the extra lights because they used the pre-2006 UK system. Which if you had read the linked report, you would know.

They changed the lights in junctions built after 2007, because the UK had changed to the current system already. Which if you had read the linked report, you would know.

Any research they found (3rd party) or carried out themselves found no adverse affects to the changes. Which if you had read the linked report, you would know.

There's a running theme here.

"TII now has the benefit of data from about 40 junctions of each type i.e Conflict Areas and mainline fully lit and a similar number with lighting at Conflict Areas only over the period circa 2007 to 2018 and can conclude that the additional lighting of the mainline at motorway/dual carriageway junctions does not improve operational road safety when compared with those junctions where the mainline is unlit;" vs "I think it's dangerous just because".

Lol! Stop stop he’s already dead! You win the argument!

spacetweek

Thoroughly silly policy that shows no understanding of how to deal with energy use.

Accidents rarely happen on motorway mainlines so they don't need to be lit. Most accidents happen at the junctions where there is turning traffic. These must be lit. The UK could be wrong about this so don't copy them.

Turning off public services to reduce carbon emissions is regressive and silly. The grid is being decarbonised, it's not the NTA's responsibility to do it. If cost is an issue (1 million a year is peanuts) then generate your own power.

Darc19

spacetweek wrote: »

Thoroughly silly policy that shows no understanding of how to deal with energy use.

Accidents rarely happen on motorway mainlines so they don't need to be lit. Most accidents happen at the junctions where there is turning traffic. These must be lit. The UK could be wrong about this so don't copy them.

Turning off public services to reduce carbon emissions is regressive and silly. The grid is being decarbonised, it's not the NTA's responsibility to do it. If cost is an issue (1 million a year is peanuts) then generate your own power.

There were threads on this before.

We are not following or copying the UK

They, like us came late to turning off motorway lights except at junctions or where short distances between junctions and or levels of traffic dictate.

Most of Europe adopted these standards years ago - even Belgium which used to have the entire network lit, turned of the majority of lights about 10 years ago.

As for motorway accidents, can you show any statistics regarding accidents at junctions?

I doubt they are there and considering that most statistics would predate the turning off of lights, it would mean that the light could be a cause

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we drop the light issue on this thread. If you want to discuss lights on motorways, open a new thread.

Thank you.

Darc19

Overnight closures on jct 10 overpass from 27th for 5 days

I suspect it's to finish off jct 10