M11/N11 - M50 (J4) to Coyne's Cross (J14) [options published]

loyatemu

josip wrote: »

What are the cost estimates of the road proposals and double tracking?

Disclaimer: I may be pulling these figures out of my ass; but in the thread on the Bray-Greystones line an estimate of 100m for a new tunnel was bandied about (based on published EU figures for tunnelling costs). The same again for the rest?

Considering the new N5 in Mayo is expected to cost north of 250m for 2+2 through a relatively flat rural landscape, I would expect an offline 3+3 upgrade of the N11 to cost substantially more.

Pete_Cavan

prunudo wrote: »

Ideally what they should do is create a double track trainline south of Bray and as someone else mentioned elsewhere having it connecting with a park n ride near Rathnew. But that doesn't address the purpose of this whole scheme which is to solve the safety and capacity issues with the n11. Whether they build a new offline route or widen the existing route there are going to be environmental issues.

Providing an alternative to commuting absolutely can solve the capacity issues. An offline route doesn't in itself remove the safety issues around Kilmac, particularly if it is to accommodate a large number of buses. The road itself has to be addressed and that is unlikely to happen when hundreds of millions are being spent on a new parallel road.

There is no comparison between the environmental and economic cost of providing bus lanes online (given most will utilise the hard shoulder) and a new offline motorway. Also one is deliverable in the next few years, the other isn't.

donvito99

sideswipe wrote: »

Can't argue too much with your points although you saying something is 'fact' doesn't necessarily make it so.

On the highlighted point- the purpose is to bring an existing road up to an acceptable standard.

You can drive from the M50 to Galway down to Limerick and back to Dublin on high quality motorway standard road. You get just beyond the Dublin/Wicklow border and have to drive through a village and then a few miles later a narrow nature reserve. I don't disagree the need to get people out of their cars but we also need to see an important road artery for the east and south east brought up to standard.

What is it about the existing road - other than traffic and certain at grade junctions - that makes it unacceptable? Why must it be brought up to a motorway standard?

Chris_5339762

marno21 wrote: »

and the N25 between Carrigtwohill and Midleton. .

Its no so bad thesedays I guess, the N11 section is way worse than it TBH.


But I always love to remember this


https://goo.gl/maps/xJE6wg1ZTFBCVG316


Oh the days before they closed the median when a lorry coming out of the quarry here at the top of the hill was turning right and as he was waiting to merge his ass would stick out and block the entire of the overtaking lane here! That was always a riot.

prunudo

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Its no so bad thesedays I guess, the N11 section is way worse than it TBH.


But I always love to remember this


https://goo.gl/maps/xJE6wg1ZTFBCVG316


Oh the days before they closed the median when a lorry coming out of the quarry here at the top of the hill was turning right and as he was waiting to merge his ass would stick out and block the entire of the overtaking lane here! That was always a riot.

Sounds like the old Kilpedder and Drummin junctions before they were closed. They were bad when the traffic numbers were in the low 20k's. With it up to mid 50k's now I'd say there's been countless lives saved with their closure.

marno21

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Its no so bad thesedays I guess, the N11 section is way worse than it TBH.


But I always love to remember this


https://goo.gl/maps/xJE6wg1ZTFBCVG316


Oh the days before they closed the median when a lorry coming out of the quarry here at the top of the hill was turning right and as he was waiting to merge his ass would stick out and block the entire of the overtaking lane here! That was always a riot.

Or when they were working on preparing the Amgen site and fired up a set of traffic lights. It’s much better with the median closures but it’s vastly substandard compared with the East Cork Parkway.

Then again it should be a dual carriageway all the way to Youghal, but we’re getting off topic here

sideswipe

donvito99 wrote: »

What is it about the existing road - other than traffic and certain at grade junctions - that makes it unacceptable? Why must it be brought up to a motorway standard?

The route from Belfast to Rosslare has long been earmarked as an important inter city/port link. More especially now with brexit.
There is a section of road between motorways at Bray and Ashford that pretty obviously needs to be brought up to standard, it goes through a village and has people driving out of their houses onto a road that’s taking tens of thousands of cars more than it was originally designed to take.

Reuben1210

marno21 wrote: »

There are several stretches of dual carriageway in Ireland built before standards were a thing and while they were sufficient in the 1980s, they are vastly substandard in the 2020s. The three that immediately come to mind are the N11 here, the N18 between Bunratty and Limerick and the N25 between Carrigtwohill and Midleton. They all have immense safety issues and are worth fixing for that alone. Both the N11 and N25 stretches are included in the National Development Plan.

When you look at it like this even. The M11 at Gorey is carrying 9000 vehicles per day and is vastly better standard than the N11 at Kilmacanogue carrying 53000 vehicles per day.

Indeed, and what about the gap in the M6 at Athlone that isn't up to standard? Not as dangerous?

marno21

Reuben1210 wrote: »

Indeed, and what about the gap in the M6 at Athlone that isn't up to standard? Not as dangerous?

IMO it’s fine since there was work done on it a few years ago. No direct accesses, fully grade separated

A new alignment south of Athlone would be incredibly expensive too.

L1011

Reuben1210 wrote: »

Indeed, and what about the gap in the M6 at Athlone that isn't up to standard? Not as dangerous?

That's just a sign colour gap at this stage. Would have been redesignated except for local moans.

Reuben1210

Dubrangan wrote: »

Exactly. This and the Galway Bypass and the M6 is complete.

Same with the M3, all they need to do is redesignate the DC section north of Kells to Derver and that, couple with the M50-Clonee scheme, would render the motorway complete.

The section to Derver needs substantial upgrading with entrance closures and the at grade junctions upgraded to GSJ's!

Reuben1210

L1011 wrote: »

That's just a sign colour gap at this stage. Would have been redesignated except for local moans.

Was that the issue of using the tractors? Any hope it could eventually be redesignated?

donvito99

sideswipe wrote: »

The route from Belfast to Rosslare has long been earmarked as an important inter city/port link. More especially now with brexit.
There is a section of road between motorways at Bray and Ashford that pretty obviously needs to be brought up to standard, it goes through a village and has people driving out of their houses onto a road that’s taking tens of thousands of cars more than it was originally designed to take.

Kilpedder? But what is it exactly about the existing route which requires another route? Where there are instances of homes/business fronting onto the road, or where junctions aren't "motorway" standard, doesn't it make more sense to remove/modify these features than to build a completely new alignment and induce even more traffic onto an at-capacity M50?

prunudo

donvito99 wrote: »

Kilpedder? But what is it exactly about the existing route which requires another route? Where there are instances of homes/business fronting onto the road, or where junctions aren't "motorway" standard, doesn't it make more sense to remove/modify these features than to build a completely new alignment and induce even more traffic onto an at-capacity M50?

There are so many access issues between junction 6 and 12 both south and northbound that it will be difficult to address them all satisfactorily (within the confines of the existing route and thats before you even address extra lanes or public transport options), I guess thats why Arup are examining offline options.

Chris_5339762

Reuben1210 wrote: »

Was that the issue of using the tractors? Any hope it could eventually be redesignated?

Its a tricky one since Athlone has only one other bridge. If it had an additional one it would probably be a no-brainer.

riddlinrussell

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Its a tricky one since Athlone has only one other bridge. If it had an additional one it would probably be a no-brainer.

I was led to believe the curve of the road there was too significant to allow them to change designation also, but I suppose if they retained the speed limit at 100 (like M50) it could be done....

BelfastVanMan

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I was led to believe the curve of the road there was too significant to allow them to change designation also, but I suppose if they retained the speed limit at 100 (like M50) it could be done....

Yes, this is true.

The junctions were also considered too close together, but again, like you said, retaining the 100kph limit would probably be enough.

prunudo

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I was led to believe the curve of the road there was too significant to allow them to change designation also, but I suppose if they retained the speed limit at 100 (like M50) it could be done....

Similar reason I heard that it was 80kph southbound through the Glen of the Downs, the bend was too tight and sight lines and stopping distance aren't sufficient.

rd1izb7lvpuksx

prunudo wrote: »

Similar reason I heard that it was 80kph southbound through the Glen of the Downs, the bend was too tight and sight lines and stopping distance aren't sufficient.

Surely it's because of the car park entrance - the bend is the same in both directions.

prunudo

Tinley Purple Turpentine wrote: »

Surely it's because of the car park entrance - the bend is the same in both directions.

Yes and no, inner curve would always be tighter. But yes the entrance and narrow hard shoulder wouldn't help matters either.

rd1izb7lvpuksx

prunudo wrote: »

Yes and no, inner curve would always be tighter. But yes the entrance and narrow hard shoulder wouldn't help matters either.

Is that the case? Due to pavement widening to accommodate HGVs on the curve and the variable width median, it looks like the lane on the inside of the curve has very similar radii on both carriageways.


If I had to put money on it, I'd say the 80km/h limit is dictated by the stopping sight distance to the car park entrance.

prunudo

Tinley Purple Turpentine wrote: »

Is that the case? Due to pavement widening to accommodate HGVs on the curve and the variable width median, it looks like the lane on the inside of the curve has very similar radii on both carriageways.


If I had to put money on it, I'd say the 80km/h limit is dictated by the stopping sight distance to the car park entrance.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Northbound bend is opening up as you exit, you also have a better sight lines through the bend as you drive it also. Southbound is tightening then sweeps right again, trees on the inside obstruct sight lines through the bend too, so guess theres a few things to take into account. Either way its done for safety reasons.

marno21

Either way, in most countries, such a busy road, which at the time was considered very strategically important, wouldn't be rammed through a nature reserve in such a fashion with a compromised alignment.

prunudo

marno21 wrote: »

Either way, in most countries, such a busy road, which at the time was considered very strategically important, wouldn't be rammed through a nature reserve in such a fashion with a compromised alignment.

Was only thinking that this evening as I drove it, they made such a shambles of the design and route in years gone by. It would be great if they have the courage to go with one of the offline routes and do this properly once and for all. But I fear that an online fudge will be on the cards and we'll see wasted money and future generations paying for bad infrastructure planning.

loyatemu

prunudo wrote: »

Was only thinking that this evening as I drove it, they made such a shambles of the design and route in years gone by. It would be great if they have the courage to go with one of the offline routes and do this properly once and for all. But I fear that an online fudge will be on the cards and we'll see wasted money and future generations paying for bad infrastructure planning.

at the end of the day the N11 connects a few provincial towns (only Wexford is of any size) and a minor port to Dublin. It's not the N7. The only reason it's ever congested is commuters, and the solution to that is not "build more road".

Most of the minor accesses on this section could be closed tomorrow. The remainder could be closed with the building of less than 10km of single-carriageway service roads alongside the main road. That would take all the local traffic off the N11. The money saved should be ploughed into public transport solutions for the commuter traffic.

prunudo

loyatemu wrote: »

at the end of the day the N11 connects a few provincial towns (only Wexford is of any size) and a minor port to Dublin. It's not the N7. The only reason it's ever congested is commuters, and the solution to that is not "build more road".

Most of the minor accesses on this section could be closed tomorrow. The remainder could be closed with the building of less than 10km of single-carriageway service roads alongside the main road. That would take all the local traffic off the N11. The money saved should be ploughed into public transport solutions for the commuter traffic.

If they can provide decent service roads and sort out the access issues then that would be great. Coupled with an improved rail line and timetable it could work but I have my doubts.
Commuters live in towns and towns have services to be supplied with goods so while commuters definitely cause issues the road is far from dead during the day.

Macy0161

Buses are the real solution. Talk of rail as anything other than a (very) long term solution is fanciful. Hard shoulder to bus lane, policed with cameras, and a massive investment in capacity of the 133 (and other routes to Sandyford (link with Luas)/ Cherrywood (line with Luas/ Dublin Bus)/ Shankill (Dart) .

The capacity issues on the 133, and the success of Wexford Bus, show there is demand for Public Transport now, with the limitations that buses face. Villages like Ashford have to have parking restrictions to stop defacto park and ride now. Tarmac money would be better spent on car parks for park and rides in Ashford, Newtown, Kilpedder.

u140acro3xs7dm

Macy0161 wrote: »

Buses are the real solution. Talk of rail as anything other than a (very) long term solution is fanciful. Hard shoulder to bus lane, policed with cameras, and a massive investment in capacity of the 133 (and other routes to Sandyford (link with Luas)/ Cherrywood (line with Luas/ Dublin Bus)/ Shankill (Dart) .

The capacity issues on the 133, and the success of Wexford Bus, show there is demand for Public Transport now, with the limitations that buses face. Villages like Ashford have to have parking restrictions to stop defacto park and ride now. Tarmac money would be better spent on car parks for park and rides in Ashford, Newtown, Kilpedder.

The problems with the 133 go beyond traffic - it's a lost cause at this stage. Sometimes they don't show up, when they do they bring you on a scenic tour of County Wicklow. There needs to be multiple, and more importantly, reliable express routes from the big towns direct to Dublin. There can be other routes going from or through Ashford, Newtown etc.

Wexford Bus have a great service which is streets ahead of the 133, and if we can get bus lanes and park & rides, it could take thousands off the road.

prunudo

Kian Fast Photography wrote: »

The problems with the 133 go beyond traffic - it's a lost cause at this stage. Sometimes they don't show up, when they do they bring you on a scenic tour of County Wicklow. There needs to be multiple, and more importantly, reliable express routes from the big towns direct to Dublin. There can be other routes going from or through Ashford, Newtown etc.

Wexford Bus have a great service which is streets ahead of the 133, and if we can get bus lanes and park & rides, it could take thousands off the road.

Any Express service should be integrated with park & rides just off the main junctions to facilitate commuters from these towns too. No point having public transport that doesn't benefit the public along the route. Why should the residents from Ashford, Newtown, Kilpedder and Kilmacanogue have to put up with a service that takes a scenic route as you put it any more than people from the south of the county.

u140acro3xs7dm

prunudo wrote: »

Any Express service should be integrated with park & rides just off the main junctions to facilitate commuters from these towns too. No point having public transport that doesn't benefit the public along the route. Why should the residents from Ashford, Newtown, Kilpedder and Kilmacanogue have to put up with a service that takes a scenic route as you put it any more than people from the south of the county.

One of the reasons I rarely use public transport is the time it takes - 4 bus stops in Newtown FFS. Every 2nd or 3rd bus can service these villages, even with park and rides, the busses will still need to service the villages for people that can't or don't want to drive.

The 133 cannot be a success as is, as BE are obliged to service these villages and townlands. They need to think along the lines of Bus Connect and have main routes, there can be another route that snakes through Ashford, Newtown, Kilpeddar, Willow Grove into Bray and maybe Greystones. If they continue as is, the 133 will be obsolete within a few years, as public transport needs to be fast, cheap and convenient.