N7/N11 Newlands Cross & Arklow to Rathnew

Road-Hog

According to the link below, NRA are looking for 'Technical Advisory Services' for a new PPP project which will include the above sections of road.....!

http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=MAY118733

Chris_533976

Yes this is the fifth PPP. If it goes well, construction will start Q4 2010.

mallet head

If Newlands is going PPP does this mean toll booths in the general area?

D.L.R.

Lets hope Newlands will be more than just 3+3.

Road-Hog

mallet head wrote: »

If Newlands is going PPP does this mean toll booths in the general area?

I think 'shadow' tolling is what it is most likely to be. i.e. Motorist Pays nothing, government pays PPP concessionaire co the tolls based on traffic counts....

nordydan

D.L.R. wrote: »

Lets hope Newlands will be more than just 3+3.

I presume the section between NC and the M50 will be 4+4, with a lane drop at this junction? There's little point having 4+4 if you drop a lane just after the junction anyway.

Carawaystick

There's 4 lanes straight through Newlands each way on the N7, 3 general purpose and a bus lane. To build a narrower bridge would be insanity.

mysterious

There is a bus lane each side as well Carawaystick and not just on one side. There is also a 2.5 median and verge. There is plenty of land to build a 4+4 Bridge. The cross section of Newlands cross is very wide. The car dealer centre should be demolished, it is far to close to this interchange and dangerous for existing onto the existing fonthill road. It should never have been built there. Now that it is closed and land prices has fallen, its necessary that the SDCC buy this out.

There is plenty of land, there is enough land here to build free flowing loops on the south east corner of the interchange facing the Tallaght direction.

LETS DO THIS RIGHT and not repeat mistakes from the Redcow which is still a mess.


Traffic levels from Redcow to Citywest is already at capacity for 3+3. 91,000 is the design capacity for this road. its already 100,000 approaching Newlands cross. If this is the present traffic levels, it is not acceptable to build a 3+3 road, It would be a far out waste when 4+4 would not cost anything more in terms of placing a slightly wider bridge. If anything at least SDCC would never have to upgrade this section for at least 2 generations. So its value for money in the long term


Since the M50 upgrades and the Interurbans are finished or nearing completion it is absaloutely necesssary to future proof the busiest section here which is Newlands cross. The bridge should be 4+4 regardless. There should a be a HS too or buslane etc.

mysterious

nordydan wrote: »

I presume the section between NC and the M50 will be 4+4, with a lane drop at this junction? There's little point having 4+4 if you drop a lane just after the junction anyway.

I dont see the point of building a 3+3 road when the current traffic is suceeded this figure,

That is like rebuilding the road that is still currently congested.

Newlands cross should of been grade separated 30 years ago. It is not acceptable to just slap a cheap bridge here after all this time. Traffic is horrific at this junction. It backs all the way back to the M50 like the pre redcow upgrade. This road needs to be 4+4 all the way to Citywest. The auxillary lane needs to be then dropped at Citywest. An auxilary lane is need here, as you have two interchanges located close together, both interchanges have fast growths in traffic leading on and off this interchange now, that the ORR has linked to the N81 and the new developments propping up.

nordydan

mysterious wrote: »

This road needs to be 4+4 all the way to Citywest. The auxillary lane needs to be then dropped at Citywest. An auxilary lane is need here, as you have two interchanges located close together, both interchanges have fast growths in traffic leading on and off this interchange now, that the ORR has linked to the N81 and the new developments propping up.

I agree with this if you're building 4+4 then NC is not the place to drop it, Citywest seems more logical.

mysterious

They have to redesign this bridge.

That 3+3 no HS cheap shiite is not going up. It is not acceptable by any means...

It is just pointless when there is room and little cost variation in giving the bridge extra span width to accomadate an extra lane on each side.

Let me repeat this after they ****ed up on the Redcow mumble jumble yet again. Traffic numbers for a 3+3 is 91,000 per day. The traffic exceeeds this at Newlands, with large negotiating movements off this road.

Where is the logic building a 3+3 bridge when its already at capacity.


The Necastlebridge has verge with for another lane on one of the carriegwas it also has a HS under the bridge. Not only this Newcastle flyover is ony carrying about 60,000 vehicles on this mainline section anyhoo. But still has a longer life span then the proposed shiite at Newlands.

Get back to the drawing boards, and do this ****ing thing right.:mad:

Carawaystick

Can you explain why the nice unround number of 91k vehicles per day was chosen for the capacity of a road?

L1011

Carawaystick wrote: »

Can you explain why the nice unround number of 91k vehicles per day was chosen for the capacity of a road?

It wasn't chosen, it was calculated. The road wasn't designed to a 91k PCU figure, the design that was chosen has a 91k PCU capacity.

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

It wasn't chosen, it was calculated. The road wasn't designed to a 91k PCU figure, the design that was chosen has a 91k PCU capacity.

Which meaning when completed the road is at capacity and since traffic increases on roads over time, it's a disaster already.:rolleyes:

I got these figures from the Rathcoole to Naas bypass road upgrade Pdf. it states on this file when traffic was around 62,000 on opening date, that it has the design capacity of 91,000 per day. Thus meaning a 3+3 dual carriegway. At Newlands its already at this figure and close to a 100,000 at the Redcow... It doesn't make much sense in building a bridge that cant really cope with the traffic levels. It is not at a safe design level, if this is the case.

With the upgrade traffic is likely going to increase anyhow.

spacetweek

It has been correctly pointed out that there's no point in going 4+4 at this location unless we promulgate this outwards as far as the ORR or Citywest at least.

(1) Is there land available for this
(2) How much would it cost
(3) Can we include it in the Newlands project.

If the answer to any of these in unfavourable, then we will have to come up with another way, like mitigating traffic. Live in the real world people.

L1011

Land on the north of junction has suddenly become more easily available at one side due to the business which was both in the way and needing access going titsup. It'd be easier to put a wider bridge through now than it was before... however without extending a fourth lane to either the ORR or Citywest the best they could do would be to build the 4th lane and barrier it off.

The Belgians patchwork upgrade motorways like this - if a section needs to be rebuilt/relaid they sometimes throw an extra lane and bar it off. You see it a fair few times driving between Calais and Antwerp.

For a fourth lane between Newlands and the M50 you'd need to either go narrow; or move a gas main; or remove the feeder lane for Joels/Esso/etc.

Carawaystick

Can someone show the calculations for the 91000 figure then? It seems overly precise.
If it turns out the only calculations are from the nra then we can all safely disregard them.

L1011

Carawaystick wrote: »

Can someone show the calculations for the 91000 figure then? It seems overly precise.
If it turns out the only calculations are from the nra then we can all safely disregard them.

Its the capacity for the type of road, nothing else; and is 'overly precise' because all the daily PCU figures for road classes are rounded.

Road-Hog

Carawaystick wrote: »

Can someone show the calculations for the 91000 figure then? It seems overly precise.
If it turns out the only calculations are from the nra then we can all safely disregard them.

Maybe its a bit like pi........an irrational number(3.1415927) that cannot be expressed as a ratio of one whole number over another?

However the following link may throw some light into the derivation of teh figures.........

http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol5/section1/ta7999.pdf

its a UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges document which the NRA have adopted, so can we 'safely disregard' this one also??

Carawaystick

The nra introduced the overhead signs on the N6 and M50 which misdirected people to use the incorrect lanes, they built a dual carriageway network with a policy of no rest/service areas; this has been reversed.

They are only cogging english roads manuals badly cos they probably couldn't be arsed translating swedish, french german versions etc.

section 2.2 of the pdf linked to says

For this reason capacity flows may be up to 10% more or less than the
values given in this document.

so this gives a spread of 81900 to 100100. Why not round to 90k?

Sponge Bob

Must + or - down , the UK manual was written by Brits about Brits and they are far more orderly drivers than us lot .

Irish drivers will max the road out at the lower end of that range . The good news for road users is that nearly every car showroom out there will close this year or next os thats when you buy the land to get ready for the inevitable 4+4 and the Mad Cow Upgrade Redux

The really good news is that the number of taxed cars in Ireland is now dropping meaning it may hit the 82000 capacity soon .

Newlands should be wide enough to take 4+4 if they have any brains .

Chris_533976

...and provided they dont do 4 -> 3 merges or anything daft like that just after the bridge/underpass.

mysterious

There is plenty of room for 4+4. regardless of what is planned it should not be the heap of crap that the Nra planned.

If you look at the cross section and see how wide it is. There are verges where they can take land on either side. Also with the Car show room place gone out, that thing should be taken up, it was stupid to build that heap of shiite there when you have 4 busy roads intersecting here.


As for the Redcow to Newlands. they could easily widen this road. by taken out the grass median, taking the cycle lanes and pavements off the Outbound lanes, its utterly pointless having a path there at that side anyway:rolleyes: Right beside a Busy Dual carriegway ffs. and that cycle lane good god.

Are SDCC are crack? Once they take that heap of ****e decorations, they can now widen the road, and put the cycle lanes onto the feeder lane. Who in gods name put cycles tracks out the N7 with 3 busy lanes of traffic beside you where would you be going at this point. Put the Cycle lane on the Clondalkin road ffs. As a cyclist, I would not be going out the N7 that way. Can I ask do they now intend to faciliate these idiotic cycle lanes on motorways, cus I'm now sure they will do something as daft as that. Its funny when you come up the Redcow spagetti junction and then a cycle lanes appears.. Ireland, only in this country... I tell ya.


I'm telling you, every one of these road planner's in the county offices should be sacked its just not even funny anymore.:mad:

mysterious

Chris_533976 wrote: »

...and provided they dont do 4 -> 3 merges or anything daft like that just after the bridge/underpass.

They could turn the fourth lane into an auxillary lane to citywest. Alot of traffic joins and leaves at this point. If you look at the amount of building gong on that way.

Sponge Bob

mysterious wrote: »

They could turn the fourth lane into an auxillary lane to citywest. Alot of traffic joins and leaves at this point..

They could, and the further back the better . I was really suggesting that the Newlands design support for lanes and not prove a constraint to a 4+4 project from beyond Citywest to the Red Cow at some future stage .

May as well get some long term benefit from the inordinate delays in widening Newlands Cross .

Still we have Noel Dempsey in charge

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054948917

By Anne Casey, Meath Chronicle, Sat, 6th March 1999

The proposed new rail service to Navan and Dublin took a step closer to reality this week as the government looked set to approve a massive overhaul of the suburban rail system.

The Minister for the Environment, Noel Dempsey, has predicted that a rail link with Navan should be in place in less than five years, and insisted that any passenger railway coming into the county could not be allowed to stop short of Navan.

That was Noel Dempsey promising a railway line from Dublin to Navan by 2004 .

http://navanrailwayproject.com/2001/07/14/article-nine-more-years-before-rail-comes-to-navan/

Meath Chronicle, Sat, Jul 14 01

THE scheduled date for provision of the Navan-Dublin rail link is
2010, Environment and Local Government Minister Noel Dempsey has
said, as Fine Gael TD John Bruton criticised the government’s
environmental record, in particular its approach to the greenhouse
gas emissions crisis.

That was Noel Dempsey promising a railway line to Navan by 2010

http://navanrailwayproject.com/2005/11/05/thumbs-up-for-navan-rail-link-national-plan-puts-county-%E2%80%98on-the-map%E2%80%99-by-2009/

Joan Duignan, Sat, Nov 05 05, Meath Chronicle
THE new Transport 21 national plan launched yesterday (1st) has placed the rail link from Clonsilla to Navan “on the map”. It offers hope to the Meath commuters who currently sit in traffic for over two hours just to reach work in Dublin in the morning.

Meath West TD, Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Noel Dempsey pledged that the integrated transport plan, when in place, would mean that few parts of Meath would be further than 20-25 minutes from a modern rail-link to Dublin with other facilities, including a metro in Dublin to take them on onward journeys – for example, to the airport.

The new Clonsilla to Dunboyne (Pace) link, phase one of the plan for Meath, with a completion schedule of 2009, would bring a huge change for the better in people’s lives, stated Meath East TD, Mary Wallace.

<snip>

Deputy Dempsey paid tribute to Navan Chamber of Commerce which had first raised discussions with him about the rail-link in 1995, and the other chambers of commerce, business and local groups which have worked to get recognition for the concept.

That was Noel Dempsey promising a railway line to Dunboyne this year and to Navan by 2015 .

What makes people think that Noel Dempsey will ensure that Newlands Cross is done properly ???

It will most likely end up a cack 3+3 and no hard shoulders .

L1011

mysterious wrote: »

As for the Redcow to Newlands. they could easily widen this road. by taken out the grass median, taking the cycle lanes and pavements off the Outbound lanes, its utterly pointless having a path there at that side anyway:rolleyes: Right beside a Busy Dual carriegway ffs. and that cycle lane good god.

The median isn't even a lane wide and has vents for, erm, something in it. I have no idea what, but there is ventilation equipment for something there...

Those cycle lanes do get used by the odd nutter but yes, they need to go for safety reasons as it is.

If 4+4 proves extremely expensive between Red Cow and Newlands they should look at getting as much of the left-turning on to Belgard traffic off it by further improvements at Ballymount and on the N81... theres odd mornings where coming off the M50 at RC and down Belgard is quicker than sitting in the queues for the Enbankment/Belgard junction down Enbankment - the Luas crossing there makes a mess of that junction entirely.

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

Those cycle lanes do get used by the odd nutter but yes, they need to go for safety reasons as it is..

LOL.... I seriously don't know why they have a cycle lane here, when you would have to cross Newlands cross.

Nutter would be the word in my books.

spacetweek

mysterious wrote: »

LOL.... I seriously don't know why they have a cycle lane here, when you would have to cross Newlands cross.

Nutter would be the word in my books.

Why is everyone so against the cycle lanes along here?? Oh right, cause the cyclists should be driving. I forgot.

mysterious

spacetweek wrote: »

Why is everyone so against the cycle lanes along here?? Oh right, cause the cyclists should be driving. I forgot.

Its the N7 where are they going after the Redcow.....

Seriously.. LIke whos cycling to Limerick from here. Its a 6 lane DC with a bus-lane and you have a cycle lane there. Either way when the widening goes ahead the cycle lane will be removed. Cyclists can use the Joels road there is room there for cyclists..... its more logical to have the cyclist lane there.


I use this road every few weeks, and to tell you the truth I haven't seen any cyclist on it in 2months. I think the road widening is more important than a cycle lane at this point, Your outside Dublin city at this point, don't think cyclists should be using this DC. I know I wouldn't, nor would I see the logic in cycling out of Dublin on this road

Carawaystick

Is the road at Joel's not inbound?
Outbound in a few km on the N7 you have Citywest and Rathcoole, both reasonably residential areas.

You use the road every few weeks - like less than every couple of weeks so at most you've used the road 4 times in 2 months... that's a reliable sampling rate alright.

So because the road is outside dublin city, there should be no cyclists using it, cos cycling is only for city dwellers...


I thought one of the main points for the N7 not being made Motorway was the lack of an alternative route?

Like the N7 leads to nowhere other than Limerick anyway....

mysterious

So are we better off to make the 100,000 N7 traffic suffer for the sake of 10 cyclists a week that use that cycle lane. Lets get real here.


Give me some paitence for such bull****.


Back on topic. Could anyone post me a pic of the new proposed layout, I want to incoporate the car dealer park into the interchange so make the 4+4 road fit in much easier.

spacetweek

mysterious wrote: »

So are we better off to make the 100,000 N7 traffic suffer for the sake of 10 cyclists a week that use that cycle lane. Lets get real here.

Give me some paitence for such bull****.

Whatever.

So we're all agreed then. They should be building a 4+4 bridge, and coning off the 4th lane until we have a 4th lane all the way out to Citywest. Right now though, a 4th lane should be added between Monastery Interchange and Newlands, which is dropped at the new overbridge.

That way, we get our upgraded junction, it would flow well down to the M50, and we can work on getting the 4th lane out to Citywest over the next few years.

Sounds like a plan.

Carawaystick

mysterious wrote: »

So are we better off to make the 100,000 N7 traffic suffer for the sake of 10 cyclists a week that use that cycle lane. Lets get real here.

If there wasn't a cycle lane, the cyclists would have to cycle in a driving lane.

L1011

Carawaystick wrote: »

If there wasn't a cycle lane, the cyclists would have to cycle in a driving lane.

Theres a negligible number of them, and the presence of the cycle lane on the DC just encourages them to use it rather than far safer roads which exists parallel at that stage. Anyway, they'd end up in the bus lane not a main driving lane - something cyclists cope with quite well elsewhere in the city...

murphaph

there are so few pedestrians using that stretch of footpath that a combined cycle and pathway would be fine. A footpath needs to be provided anyway.

mysterious

murphaph wrote: »

there are so few pedestrians using that stretch of footpath that a combined cycle and pathway would be fine. A footpath needs to be provided anyway.

Which why there is no point:rolleyes: you make it sound like


I cant eat a sandwich without chicken in it.... this **** hurts my brain.


Logic will tell you that anyone who uses that pathway crosses over to the Fonthill road or towards Clondalkin. The Bowstring bridge allows them to cross over the DC freely.

So they should actully move pedestrians onto the Joels lane instead.

There is only reason that pathway/cycle lane is there is to make it look to pretty.....

Chris_533976

Chicken sandwiches are nice though. A big piece of chicken breast, a small bit of salt and some barbecue sauce.

murphaph

mysterious wrote: »

Which why there is no point:rolleyes: you make it sound like


I cant eat a sandwich without chicken in it.... this **** hurts my brain.

It's not that complicated I assure you.

mysterious wrote: »

Logic will tell you that anyone who uses that pathway crosses over to the Fonthill road or towards Clondalkin. The Bowstring bridge allows them to cross over the DC freely.

That's just plain wrong. Some pedestrians access the businesses on the southern side of the N7 between the bowstring bridge and Newlands cross.

mysterious wrote: »

So they should actully move pedestrians onto the Joels lane instead.

See above-this would not allow pedestrians to access the businesses mentioned.

mysterious wrote: »

There is only reason that pathway/cycle lane is there is to make it look to pretty.....

No it's because it's a busy national road with a right of way for pedestrians to use. I suggest that the current segregated footpath and cycleway could be combined into a shared use type given the low volume of users whilst still allowing safe pedestrian access to the businesses on the south side of the N7 at this location.

The road here is not some bypass. It has been successively widened down the years and this needs to be borne in mind.

mysterious

Chris_533976 wrote: »

Chicken sandwiches are nice though. A big piece of chicken breast, a small bit of salt and some barbecue sauce.

I would have a chicken sandwich cylcing down that road, not a bother.

Sure its a thrill... Don't know why I would be cycling down that way.

mysterious

murphaph wrote: »

That's just plain wrong. Some pedestrians access the businesses on the southern side of the N7 between the bowstring bridge and Newlands cross.

So they all cycle to work:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:....

how many businesses are there. Seriously. And how many cycle to these businesses, 2?... They can easily put a link to an post and the buildings around there to the Luas interchage roundabout.

No it's because it's a busy national road with a right of way for pedestrians to use. I suggest that the current segregated footpath and cycleway could be combined into a shared use type given the low volume of users whilst still allowing safe pedestrian access to the businesses on the south side of the N7 at this location.

For someone who wanted to ban cyclists off the Athlone bypass, you want to keep cyclists on a road that is 4 times busier. rofl...

Murphaph your non points never surprise me.

The road here is not some bypass. It has been successively widened down the years and this needs to be borne in mind.

I never said it was, it's a busy Dc. that needs to be widened. cylists can use the other path on the other side of the road ffs.... there is hardly any development on the outbound lane. From an post to Newlands is bare land. BARE LAND.... Where would the cyclists be going.

BluntGuy

mysterious wrote: »

For someone who wanted to ban cyclists off the Athlone bypass, you want to keep cyclists on a road that is 4 times busier. rofl...

I think it's best not to point out that particular thread, since you were the person claiming... what was it again, 1000 tractors use that road every hour or something...

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

mysterious

BluntGuy wrote: »

I think it's best not to point out that particular thread, since you were the person claiming... what was it again, 1000 tractors use that road every hour or something...

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

I said probable.Not exact.

murphaph

mysterious wrote: »

So they all cycle to work:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:.....

Of course not. No need to be supersillious.

mysterious wrote: »

how many businesses are there. Seriously. And how many cycle to these businesses, 2?... They can easily put a link to an post and the buildings around there to the Luas interchage roundabout..

There's a side road from just after the old Renault Ireland building onto the DC there too. There are various businesses down that road and I regularly had to let traffic out from it onto the N7 so somebody must work down there. You don't live in the area do you Mysterious? I passed that stretch of road every day for a couple of years as I ued to live just off the N7 near the Kildare border. People do actually use that footpath to access the businesses on the road there.

mysterious wrote: »

For someone who wanted to ban cyclists off the Athlone bypass, you want to keep cyclists on a road that is 4 times busier. rofl....

Exactly. Athlone BYPASS. Built as a new offline bypass of the old route through Athlone with NO adjoining businesses so we should strive to PREVENT a Naas Road type situation developing along it (hence it should be declared MOTORWAY). The Naas Road is an ancient route and at this particualr point it is the original route-the trees in the central reservation at this point used to be the southern boundary along the road in fact, before it was widened in the 60s. The Naas Road was never protected from development and now that businesses stretch along it's southern boundary, pedestrian access must be maintained as the ancient right of way exists over this road. It would be practically impossible (and probably illegal from the business owners point of view) to ban pedestrians from using this road. If the road had no businesses along it I'd be all in favour of motorway restrictions (for example the Chapelizod Bypass).

mysterious wrote: »

Murphaph your non points never surprise me..

Whatever. Such childish drivel.

mysterious wrote: »

I never said it was, it's a busy Dc. that needs to be widened. cylists can use the other path on the other side of the road ffs.... there is hardly any development on the outbound lane. From an post to Newlands is bare land. BARE LAND.... Where would the cyclists be going.

They can't access the old Renault Ireland facility/Heitons and the other businesses up that side road I mentioned from ACROSS a dual carriageway now can they. You want to 'magic up' space for a link from the Luas to these businesses but reckon there isn't enough space for a footpath as things stand? You're confused in your thinking.

mysterious

murphaph wrote: »

There's a side road from just after the old Renault Ireland building onto the DC there too. There are various businesses down that road and I regularly had to let traffic out from it onto the N7 so somebody must work down there. You don't live in the area do you Mysterious? I passed that stretch of road every day for a couple of years as I ued to live just off the N7 near the Kildare border. People do actually use that footpath to access the businesses on the road there.

Did you have to write all this bull in such a large paragraph.

Look at this map, I really think your not familar with this road. From An post to Newlands lies NO DEVELOPMENT. NOTHING.

The businesses are on Joel's side citybound.
Your talking nonsense. It is not a neccesatiy to have a fanciful cycleway/pathway on this side of the road. It should be built offline to the DC.



<iframe width="640" height="340" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=53.314429,-6.385353&spn=0.004359,0.013733&z=16&output=embed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=53.314429,-6.385353&spn=0.004359,0.013733&z=16&source=embed&quot; style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>


This is the link, don't how to put it up here directly but here it shows that there are no businesses on this part of the N7

Exactly. Athlone BYPASS. Built as a new offline bypass of the old route through Athlone with NO adjoining businesses so we should strive to PREVENT a Naas Road type situation developing along it (hence it should be declared MOTORWAY). The Naas Road is an ancient route and at this particualr point it is the original route-the trees in the central reservation at this point used to be the southern boundary along the road in fact, before it was widened in the 60s. The Naas Road was never protected from development and now that businesses stretch along it's southern boundary, pedestrian access must be maintained as the ancient right of way exists over this road. It would be practically impossible (and probably illegal from the business owners point of view) to ban pedestrians from using this road. If the road had no businesses along it I'd be all in favour of motorway restrictions (for example the Chapelizod Bypass).

No one is asking for motorway restrictions, this is for safety and common sense. It is NOT NEEDED.

vel.

They can't access the old Renault Ireland facility/Heitons and the other businesses up that side road I mentioned from ACROSS a dual carriageway now can they. You want to 'magic up' space for a link from the Luas to these businesses but reckon there isn't enough space for a footpath as things stand? You're confused in your thinking.

Hmm guess you really haven't a clue.

Renault building is on the OTHER SIDE. if you understand this I may help you out further. Cyclists and pedestrian would be using joels lane to access the renualt building. There is no reason why they cannot use a safer direct pathway on the same side of the road.

Carawaystick

mysterious, explain the route you would make a cyclist take to get from the LongMile road to Rathcoole?
Also from the Luas car park to Roadstone?

JTfan

:cool:Sorry

murphaph

mysterious wrote: »

Did you have to write all this bull in such a large paragraph.

Look at this map, I really think your not familar with this road. From An post to Newlands lies NO DEVELOPMENT. NOTHING.

The businesses are on Joel's side citybound.
Your talking nonsense. It is not a neccesatiy to have a fanciful cycleway/pathway on this side of the road. It should be built offline to the DC.

I said a combined footpath and cycleway is all that's needed along here, not a fanciful one. 'The bare minimum' if that makes it easier for you.

mysterious wrote: »

This is the link, don't how to put it up here directly but here it shows that there are no businesses on this part of the N7

But there are business immediately east of this stretch and the Belgard Road (main feeder road into Tallaght from this area) lies immediately west. How would you route cyclists from Tallaght to say An Post?

mysterious wrote: »

No one is asking for motorway restrictions, this is for safety and common sense. It is NOT NEEDED.

For safety you should provide a footpath and combined cycleway here other wise pedestrians and cyclists will LEGALLY walk in lane 1 of your proposed road.

mysterious wrote: »

Hmm guess you really haven't a clue.

Oh really....

mysterious wrote: »

Renault building is on the OTHER SIDE.

Wrong. I said OLD RENAULT IRELAND FACILITY-this is NOW the An Post building (previously SDS building). So I guess it's you who hasn't a clue lol. I'm born and bred in the area and know it all very well.

mysterious wrote: »

if you understand this I may help you out further. Cyclists and pedestrian would be using joels lane to access the renualt building.
Irrelevant as you are talking about a Renault DEALERSHIP-nothing to do with the old Renault Ireland building, which is now An Post.

Basically mysterious it seems to have escaped you that this is a bloody urban area and in urban areas (apart from motorways) it is standard practice to provide footpaths and where possible cycle paths. The fact that there is no development between An Post (Heitons access road actually) and the Belgard Road is EVEN MORE reason to take some of that undeveloped land and BUILD A FOOTPATH on it when the road is widened.

mysterious

You still don't get it......

Why do I nearly always end up correcting you on these infrastructure points.

Redcow
Turnpike
the actual Clondalkin merge(pre Redcow upgraded)
And again recently on another thread about the N25 just to name a few.


Now here.........

I will draw a map of what is the correct procedere here, and actually make all your points negible............ every single one.
P.S if you can name someone who actually cycles from Tallaght to An Post, I'd be very very surprised. This is not an an urbanised area. It's suburban that's the diffrerence. For someone who was reared in this region you should know. The N7 is all industrial along this road all the way to Rathcoole. Infact as a cyclist's myself this region is not suited for cyclists I can assure you. its predominentely car traffic.

I will show my plans, and it will involve your route, but at present you always see short sightness and of such.

murphaph

Good man mysterious. You go and draw your maps. You don't even know what buildings we're talking about.

Carawaystick

mysterious wrote: »

You still don't get it......

who are you referring to?

mysterious wrote: »

Infact as a cyclist's myself this region is not suited for cyclists I can assure you. its predominentely car traffic.

You could say every road in the country is predominately car traffic. What region do you mean?

murphaph

The guy doesn't even realise that suburban is a subset of urban, not the opposite of it. Urban just means built up area it doesn't mean "city centre". Bray has an URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL so is Bray now more URBAN than Clondalkin/Tallaght?

Mysterious also completely forgets that undeveloped land in Dublin generally doesn't stay undeveloped for long anyway.