Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

M4 - Maynooth to Leixlip [constr. of inbound bus lane underway;planning and design underway on rest]

245678

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    MOD:

    Maynooth-Leixlip. As per title.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,864 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Do they expect much to have changed since the entire length was surveyed in the 1980s? Topography is one thing that doesn't really change much!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,100 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    When I graduated many years ago one my first jobs was working in a newly opened NRD office, anyway two years ago one of my fellow grads rang me who is now a senior executive engineer to see if i remember some information in regards to a project we worked on back then as all information is gone. So i would say all the information on the Lucan maynooth Kilcock bypass is well gone so they have to do the survey again


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 990 ✭✭✭Fred Cryton


    Why is this only going as far as Maynooth. Wasn't the original M4 motorway section built as far as Enfield back in the day. The whole section needs upgrading, over 25 years old now.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 41,815 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Why is this only going as far as Maynooth. Wasn't the original M4 motorway section built as far as Enfield back in the day. The whole section needs upgrading, over 25 years old now.
    Upgrading to what?
    Or do you mean simply upgrade the surface? The stretch heading west from Kilcock wouldn't be that old now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,108 ✭✭✭nordydan


    It went to Kilcock back in the day.

    Not justified upgarding it after that given that othe projects (M20 etc) need the funds more


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 41,815 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    There's no justification in upgrading it (i.e. widening or junction upgrades) from Kilcock to Maynooth (and probably none in upgrading it from Maynooth to Leixlip) as all you are doing is enabling the congestion. The money would be far better off being spent on P&R facilities, etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,144 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Funnily enough I was clearing out my phone today and found this from October last year. Local FG rep justification for upgrading: he wants a "wider traffic jam"

    533315.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,864 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The section from Maynooth to Kilcock was resurfaced a few months ago.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    buffalo wrote: »
    Funnily enough I was clearing out my phone today and found this from October last year. Local FG rep justification for upgrading: he wants a "wider traffic jam"

    533315.jpg

    "A wider traffic jam, he's not wrong! Seeing that as a positive is bonkers though, also talking total nonsense about 'more off ramps' does he expect to retain the current one and add a second one on the third lane?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    "A wider traffic jam, he's not wrong! Seeing that as a positive is bonkers though, also talking total nonsense about 'more off ramps' does he expect to retain the current one and add a second one on the third lane?

    File under 'Local Politician Talks Total Shite To Get 3 Column Inches In The Local Paper So That The Seat He Won By 21 Votes Is Protected'.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,690 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    Students would be able to drive straight into the college

    Just wow. The man is living in the wrong century


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,306 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Rather than just adding a second junction at Maynooth, they should build two new junctions, one either side of the existing one, and close J7 which is unsuitable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,473 ✭✭✭Mimon


    L1011 wrote: »
    The section from Maynooth to Kilcock was resurfaced a few months ago.

    It's a really bad job. Water pools in channels on it during heavy rain.

    On the congestion, they should use the hard shoulder further out as an exit lane for Maynooth and the Celbridge/Leixlip exit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,144 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Mimon wrote: »
    On the congestion, they should use the hard shoulder further out as an exit lane for Maynooth and the Celbridge/Leixlip exit.

    Because congestion is solved by added more capacity, and the hard shoulder doesn't serve any purpose? :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 990 ✭✭✭Fred Cryton


    There's no justification in upgrading it (i.e. widening or junction upgrades) from Kilcock to Maynooth (and probably none in upgrading it from Maynooth to Leixlip) as all you are doing is enabling the congestion. The money would be far better off being spent on P&R facilities, etc.


    "enabling the congestion"...fancy words which are completely meaningless. People like you would have argued against the motorway in the first place when faced with the old congested single lane road into Dublin.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    "enabling the congestion"...fancy words which are completely meaningless. People like you would have argued against the motorway in the first place when faced with the old congested single lane road into Dublin.

    2 lane roads allow overtaking of slow traffic, well designed on/off slips allow safer leaving/joining of traffic at speed, minimum requirements for curves and distances between junctions improve speed and safety. I would probably fall under your 'People like you' as a member of the green party. I would never suggest that this road be a single carriageway, I'm in favour of the M20 being built. But I would strongly oppose 3+ laning any more of our network, that's an american 'solution' that has resulted in more induced demand and more pollution and congestion anywhere it has been tried.

    If a 2 lane motorway isn't solving your problem you need to look at what NEEDS to move by road and work on getting everything else OFF the road, via increased bus services, improved rail links, improved pedestrian and cycling facilities, all of those can either be timetabled to ensure congestion is minimised (Train and Bus) or are so space efficient that induced demand will take a long time to fill the provided routes, while being non polluting, good for public health, and FAR cheaper to 'widen'/upgrade when demand requires it.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 41,815 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    "enabling the congestion"...fancy words which are completely meaningless. People like you would have argued against the motorway in the first place when faced with the old congested single lane road into Dublin.
    Firstly what exactly are "people like me" given that you don't know me? In fact, I believe that the motorway is a good thing.
    Secondly, the road doesn't need widening. It needs altrernatives to remove a lot of the unnecessary journeys and freeing up space. At peak times, the road is congested. Making it wider won't make it less congested - all traffic models show that if you widen roads, then more traffic will use them.
    But hey, I don't want to spoil your rant.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,473 ✭✭✭Mimon


    buffalo wrote: »
    Because congestion is solved by added more capacity, and the hard shoulder doesn't serve any purpose? :confused:

    Yeh, would not be ideal to lose the hard shoulder but the intention of adding an exit lane would be to take traffic that are exiting there able to get off the motorway a lot sooner.

    Also was there any need for the emoji and self righteous tone of your post?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,144 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Mimon wrote: »
    Yeh, would not be ideal to lose the hard shoulder but the intention of adding an exit lane would be to take traffic that are exiting there able to get off the motorway a lot sooner.

    Also was there any need for the emoji and self righteous tone of your post?

    There probably wasn't, but both aspects of what you propose won't solve any problems and show extreme short-term thinking, so it was difficult to resist.

    Losing the hard shoulder means no refuge in case of breakdown, etc. on a 120kph carriageway, which is a serious consequence.

    An extra lane for a few hundred metres just for an exit adds very little extra capacity, and what little capacity it adds will soon be used up by induced demand. You'll end up with - as mentioned a few posts above - a wider traffic jam. Meaning more congestion with the extra pollution that brings, but without any journey time improvements.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Scheme website launched @ https://maynoothleixlip.ie/

    Options selection underway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,144 ✭✭✭buffalo


    marno21 wrote: »
    Scheme website launched @ https://maynoothleixlip.ie/

    Options selection underway.

    Quick scan of the feasibility report - one mention of CO2, in the context of road freight. No estimate of the extra journeys induced and facilitated by the expansion, and associated increase in emissions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 249 ✭✭specialbyte


    Section 10.1:
    There is an extensive public transport network in the study area serving commuters. However, there is a high dependency on private cars as a preferred mode of transport (>60% for those living in Maynooth but working outside of Maynooth). Therefore, the modal shift from private car to public transport has not materialised.

    That section has me super worried that instead of trying to tackle their primary problem: too many cars using the motorway causing congestion and safety issues, that they will optioneer their way towards road expansion because public transport 'doesn't work'. Then they say:
    Bus services utilising the M4 must negotiate the same traffic volumes as private cars, which disincentivises take up of public transport alternatives to the private car.

    Maybe there's a chance that the preferred option might be to shift people out of their cars into public transport. Then they say:
    There may also be a perception that public transport may be convoluted and is not reliable.

    What about public transport is "convoluted"? Inconvenient maybe. Too slow definitely.

    I'm pretty wary of highway engineers trying to justify never ending motorway widening on this project. We really need to stop widening the motorways into Dublin. It's a waste of time and money. It doesn't work. Induced demand will fill up the new road space quickly. This area needs better public transport. It needs local employment to reduce long distance commuting. It needs local walking and cycling facilities.

    This report doesn't fill me with great hope of a sustainable plan that fits our national climate obligations.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,473 ✭✭✭Mimon


    buffalo wrote: »
    Because congestion is solved by added more capacity, and the hard shoulder doesn't serve any purpose? :confused:

    Pre Covid people (including myself when it was really bad) would sue the hard shoulder as an exit lane anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,306 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    For me, the only realistic option is Alternative 3b: Full bus lanes between Junction 5 and Junction 7 and widening into central median. There may be some elements of other options along with that, such as upgrades to or links between certain R roads. J7 needs to be upgraded as well, the current set up is totally substandard. It would require a bit of CPOing immediately west of the junction but it should be upgraded to the same junction type as J5, with a second bridge added to the west and new ramps west of it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭Irishphotodesk


    in my view a proper review of the road network would allow them to see that congestion is generally caused because of an accident or negligent driving, the volume of traffic along the road is caused by commuters forced out of dublin for cheaper properties, the lack of similar jobs outside the dublin is concerning.

    the issues are multi-factored but it seems to be ignored or not taken into consideration when reviewing roads network, its essentially like if Irish water was doing a review of a piping system because water isn't flowing fast through a pipe and only blaming the pipe - trying to adjust the pipe or widen the pipe when they need to look at where the water flow is coming from or if the pipe has any blockages to see where the actual issue is, the widening of the road is probably not the best solution.

    As Pete_Cavan says the realistic alternative is a dedicated bus lane the whole journey to help improve the public transport network and try to encourage road users to use the public transport, however, this would also need constant surveillance and road traffic enforcement or it would be abused (if I had any input I would suggest a series of ANPR cameras along the route with dedicated CCTV in support, if the vehicle is not on the approved list automatic fine sent with accompanying CCTV footage, over time it should be effective and should be done for all dedicated bus lanes).

    I have used this commute for in excess of 10yrs and I rely on my vehicle to move from location to location when in Dublin - so for me - its possible that I would use public transport and something like a gocar while in Dublin (but only if the costs were significantly lower).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,739 ✭✭✭Naos


    Any update on the re-surfacing of the Leixlip section of the road?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,864 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Its not going to be resurfaced - nothing will be done until this plan progresses.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,739 ✭✭✭Naos


    So it will be resurfaced when the plan progresses, so it will be resurfaced?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,864 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    It'll be replaced. But it's years and years away. Nothing will happen in the short term



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    No point even commenting on this thread anymore. No way this scheme will go ahead. Have you seen the COP26 reporting?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,864 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    It'll be sold as a public transport improvement project. Deceitfully, but that won't stop it being claimed that's why its being done.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭highdef


    Shocked that you are publicly admitting to using the emergency lane/hard shoulder on a motorway when you feel self justified to do so, especially as you don't give any evidence that you do or did so for emergency reasons - please do give examples of why you did use the emergency lane/hard shoulder for emergency reasons as they can be excusable.

    I've been a regular user of the M4 for over a dozen years and not once have I contemplated using the emergency lane/hard shoulder as a driving lane. If the traffic on the motorway is at a standstill or barely moving, there's a reasonable possibility that there may have been an incident ahead and that emergency services may require use of the emergency lane/hard shoulder. Even if it's not the case, it's always best to err on the side caution and assume that this is the case rather than think "I'm more important than everyone queuing in front of me and I'll do whatever I can do to get ahead, **** everyone else!".

    Post edited by highdef on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,182 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Using the hard shoulder as an exit lane is the lesser evil compared to staying in the main carriageway if the exit you need to take is also backed up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,401 ✭✭✭markpb


    How is that? If there's an incident ahead that's causing congestion, staying on the mainline keeps the HS clear for responders. Using the HS as an exit means you're potentially going to get in their way if there's congestion or if the incident is between you and the exit. It's also likely to cause additional incidents as people ahead of you try to enter the HS or exit ramp. I'm not talking about someone jumping into the HS a few meters before it turns into the exit ramp, it's the idiots who drive 250+ meters in the HS, who have no visibility of what's in the HS when they enter it and who are putting their own time ahead of everyone elses.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,182 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Have a think about how motorway exit and entry roads interact with the hard shoulder, and you’ll see why first responders don’t use it. The normal tactic is to move out, force drivers to create space between their traffic lanes, and then drive down that. In the German highway code, this is known as a Rettungsgasse (“rescue way”), and it is a requirement for drivers in stopped traffic to form one, by moving left or right depending on the lane they’re in... it’s something we should adopt, I think.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,401 ✭✭✭markpb


    That works well in Germany but it's not the practice here. Responders here use the hard shoulder on motorways and DCs, just like they use bus lanes on urban streets. They all have the same problems at junctions but they're still the best way to get past congested traffic for most of their trip. People YOLOing along in the hard shoulder because they can't be late getting in to update a spreadsheet in work are selfish a******s, nothing else.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,182 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Any time I’ve seen emergency vehicles driving down stopped dual carriageways it’s been as I described - moving out onto the main carriageway and getting traffic to move over. On the most congested motorway in the country, the hard shoulder is barely 2 metres wide - not wide enough to accommodate a fire-engine. Maybe you could do hard-shoulder running on a rural motorway, but not on urban roads like M50 or N40 with frequent junctions and regular congestion.

    The difference with Germany is that making this kind of space in stopped traffic is part of the rules of the road. Here, people move out of the way when they see the blue lights.

    I’m not arguing that it’s perfectly fine for people to duck up the hard shoulder because traffic is slow; just countering the somewhat sanctimonious assertion that doing so is causing deaths by impeding the emergency services. It is not; it’s bad manners, but it’s nothing more than bad manners.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭highdef


    How is remaining on the main carriageway in heavy or standstill traffic a "greater evil" than using the hard shoulder/emergency lane as a self declared driving lane? Please explain with facts that support your claims, otherwise go away with your selfish and rather shocking statement.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35 Spiaire




  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 41,815 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Using the hard shoulder is what is selfish (and dangerous and illegal). If you don't like being stuck in traffic, then leave the car at home. By driving a car you are increasing the volume of traffic.

    [cue the grumblings of I need my car blah blah]



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭highdef


    Yes, I have passed my driving test, over 20 years. I knew then and I still know now that use of the emergency lane/hard shoulder as a driving lane (ie, using the lane as a means of getting from point A to point B in a non emergency situation) is a road traffic offence. It's also selfish, dangerous and announces to all those who abide by the rules that said driver is a self entitled prick.

    The emergency lane is to used only in specific situations such as you have mechanical issues and need a safe place to park your vehicle whilst you wait for assistance, or possibly if there has been a traffic incident/collision and emergency services have instructed all vehicles to pull over and stop (and remain stationery) in the emergency lane so as to keep a clear path between the two (or more) lines of stationary traffic so that progress of vital assistance is not impeded.

    Do you not agree with any or all of the above and if so, please explain your rationale as to why you think my comments are unreasonable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35 Spiaire


    Think we can get back on topic?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,864 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    We've got so many exceptionally poor driver educated/tested drivers in Ireland (plus a decent number that got licences by default) that something like this would take decades to drill in to enough peoples heads to actually work.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,506 ✭✭✭bennyineire


    Any update or time lines on this project, seems difficult to fine



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 910 ✭✭✭brianc89


    Is this project seriously being considered? A classic example of induced demand. I'm entirely supportive of building new motorways and bypasses where needed, but widening motorways should be massively limited.

    The M7 was justified given it links to multiple population centres in Midlands / South West and the motorway splits in 2 after Newbridge. But widening the M4 to 3 lanes is madness. It will simply fill up with more cars in no time.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement