Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

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

13031323335

Comments



  • Surely if it comes to it, they will just leave J10 as is. I mean, is it any worse than J9 which they are intended to leave as is?





  • I don't think they can just leave it as is. As I understand it, J10 is one of the more significant contributors to the both the traffic and the safety issues they're trying to solve. It's currently a bit of a nightmare on both sides, and impossible to improve it without some fairly significant remodelling which is out of the question due to it being in the SAC.

    I have been fairly critical of the whole process, but in fairness to them I think they have made the right call re J10. It was a tough decision that they must have known will cause a fairly big backlash.





  • I don't think that call on J10 has actually been made yet. It is just a proposal for now and I wouldn't be surprised to see them row back on that if there is enough opposition.

    The fact that they want to leave J9 as is makes the case for also leaving J10 stronger. If the proposals were to have a certain minimum standard of junction which was being achieved at each junction post upgrade, then there would be a stronger case for closing J10. Instead, it seems the bar for what constitutes an acceptable junction is set pretty low (as evidenced by J9).

    As I said before, I think they should build a new J9 about 600m further north. There looks to me to be enough space (although I certainly could be wrong) and c.1km of new road east towards Greystones could form the first part of a new access road, which Greystones absolutely needs. It would be much easier to close J10 if both J9 and J11 had capacity increased to handle the extra traffic. Closing J10 while leaving J9 and J11 as they are was never going to fly imo.





  • Fair point, it's not set in stone, I'll reserve judgment until I see whether they row back on it or not!

    Everything you say is valid, which is why I maintain that the offline cyan route was the option they should have chosen despite the financial, engineering and environmental headaches.

    No matter what fudges they try between junctions 9, 10 and 11 is not going to solve the problems, and risks making them worse. Having said that, now they have chosen to work with the existing road, they're not going to suddenly go back to looking at offline options.

    In this case I think that no matter how much opposition there is to closing J10, there is not much else they can do other than close it. In fairness to ARUP they're trying to find a solution working against very vocal opposition to both closing J10 (inconvenienced local traffic backed by local politicians) and improving J10 (involves widening the road in an SAC).

    So no matter what they do, they know they are up against a fight. They have to choose the fight they think they can win. The local opposition against closing J10 is essentially backed by nothing more than nimbyism, whereas the opposition to meddling with an SAC is backed by a fairly stringent EU directive.

    Far easier to overcome nimbyism than an EU directive.





  • Offline is not a realistic option. Just look at posts today on Metrolink and DART+, if they are struggling to get the required funding, if we can't find the money for electrified mass public transport projects then there is no hope for a car commuter motorway. 

    I don't see what the SAC has to do with anything, the junction can just stay open without changingthe existingsituation. If taking the "Shur it'll do" attitude to J9, then they can do the same with J10. I'm not saying I agree with that, just that it is the path of least resistance so could well happen.

    If they really want to close J10, there should be improvements to J9 (replacement is the only option) and J11 to compensate and as a sop to the naysayers (I know they still won't accept that but at least TII could show they have mitigated the cof the junction if challenged on it).



  • Advertisement


  • Tbh, leaving the northbound slip and a lesser extent the southbound exit from jn10 open wouldn't bother me. Once they close the Drummin junctions and the newish loopback slip and old Downs road slip it would help with removing the local traffic movements from the mainline. Which ultimately is what this project has become.

    The new flyover at Drummin would also ease the negative impact of closing the current access to locals.

    Post edited by prunudo on




  • Seeing more and more of these appearing on fb. Hopefully Arup hold firm on the majority of their ideas otherwise we'll get another half arsed fudge of a design. It actually worries me in general for future big projects if every aggrieved citizen gets to stick their oar into infrastructure thats needes for the national good. Social media seems to have given everyone a platform.





  • I am not sure if the new flyover is going to help the locals much. The traffic joining the N11 at the Drummin junction to head south is currently very light, which suggests the vast majority of Delgany residents heading south access the N11 at J11 - this would make sense as the village is most densely populated in the north eastern area and it is more convenient for them to access the n11 southbound via the R761 at Killincarrig roundabout and the Farrankelly Road.

    It follows that if they currently choose to access N11 southbound via Junction 11, then if the new road layout in future means they have no choice but to leave the N11 at Junction 11 then the vast majority will continue on down the Farrankelly Road and into Delgany via Killincarrig Roundabout.

    The amount of people who will find it more convenient to leave the N11 at J11, carry on to first roundabout, turn around, back under N11, through the two roundabouts on far side, down to Willow Grove and onto the flyover and into Delgany that way is tiny I would think.

    The vast majority of traffic who would ordinarily leave at J10 will now leave at Junction 11 and use the Farrankelly Road instead of the flyover. It's a very expensive solution for a handful of people.





  • The locals I was referring to were those who travel from Willow Grove to Delgany and visa versa, these are the people who are currently using the drummin and jn10 access points. Which contributes to the traffic and safety issues. The flyover would help them.

    From what I can see on Facebook, people are living in a utopian land where they want everyone else to use publuc transport, they don't want any more land taken for slip roads and the existing road layout should stay the same. They don't want to be inconvenienced by change and block, sign and jump on every campaign to stop any of Arup's proposals or solutions.



  • Advertisement


  • there's a FB campaign/petition up now to stop the proposed side road from J11 to the Kilquade turn. Whatever about J10, that Kilquade LILO is definitely going to be closed - the alternative to connecting it back to J11 is to build a road in the other direction and connect it to J12, seems much of a muchness to me. Or to build nothing and leave the people living on that road a few KM extra to get to the N11, but the garden centre (Arboretum) won't be happy with that as it will impact their business.





  • I've seen that, it's a perfect example of nimby'ism. Its a 500m piece of road that will have very little traffic yet they go on like it will take volumes equivalent to the n11. It will literally be access for people who currently use the Kilquade rd.


    And I'll add, like @schmittel says above, a lot of the people agaisnt this link road were leading the charge against the cyan and other offline routes.

    Post edited by prunudo on




  • Having spoken to a few locals readying their submissions over the last few days, i think there is an interesting battle looming over J10.

    A key objective of the project brief is improving traffic flow and safety.

    ARUP have identified J10 as in its current layout being both a big contributory factor to hindering traffic flow and dangerous. To anybody familliar with the junction that seems like a reasonable comment

    They have also said it is impossible to improve its layout given both the physical and environmental constraints. That also seems reasonable to anybody familiar with the area.

    Some quite vocal residents, emboldened by Simon Harris are Councillor Mitchell, are screaming "Not in my back yard, over my dead body!"

    What gives?

    ARUP cannot suddenly say "Oh we were wrong, perhaps it is not so dangerous after all, we'll keep it open."

    Nor can they say "Actually the constraints aren't that big a deal, we can improve it, the Habitats Directive is not that big a deal when it comes too road building"

    But will WCC be able to resist the pressure of public opinion, backed by a government minister and one of their own councillors?

    It seems like a difficult circle to square.





  • The reality is the n11 is a national road which the objectors seem to forget. They want to contuine to use it for their local journeys and don't want to accept any change to the status quo. No to offline routes, no to link roads, no to junction closures. If they contuine their blinkered view they'll be left with long cross country journeys via back roads to access the n11.





  • I'd nearly put money on the compromised solution for J10 being the northbound on ramp and southbound off ramp remaining with all other slips being closed.





  • Sure if they are going to compromise, that seems to be the obvious way to do it.

    But my point is in Phase 1, the findings of which led to Phase 2 etc, these stand out as the most problematic - eg being non compliant with TII Geometric Design Parameters - see Table 4.5 of the Feasibility Study. The Southbound diverging lane is 110m short of being compliant.

    Can they really leave it as is to compromise and also claim they are fulfilling the project brief of improving the substandard junctions? It would seem unlikely. And apparently the constraints of the SAC mean they are unable to bring it up to standard, so their hands are tied.





  • that's what the local councillor Mitchell is proposing.

    TBH if I lived in Delgany I'd be happy to see J10 closed as it will greatly reduce ratrun traffic through the village and will only add about 2 mins to journeys to/from the N11. The protestors seem to think all the traffic that currently uses J10 will switch to J9 and come over Kindlestown hill into Delgany instead, which wouldn't make any sense for anyone not actually living in Delgany village (and they could put some traffic calming measures on those back roads to discourage it anyway).

    Many of the same faces complaining about a one-way scheme for the village that IMO will make it a much more pleasant place; people hate any sort of change and can't visualise any benefits, only problems.





  • Totally agree. The vast majority of J10 Delgany traffic flow is either leaving from or going to the Delgany Wood surrounding area - the north eastern area of the village. it makes absolutely no sense for them to use Kindlestown Hill as an alternative.

    They are actually unlikely even to use the proposed replacement to J10 either, eg flyover to J11 via Willow Grove. For the vast majority of houses in Delgany it will be shorter and quicker to access J11 via Killincarrig roundabout and Farrankelly.

    I support closing J10, it just seems a bit bananas that the proposed alternative access is building a new road to access J11 instead and the new road is longer and less intuitive for most than the current road to J11!!






  • it's not just there for access to the N11, it restores a direct link between Kilpedder/WG and Delgany that was closed years ago and with the more circuitous (one-way) route via Old Downs Rd also being closed they had to do something for local traffic, cyclists etc.






  • Sure they definitely need to provide that link. But a flyover is pretty major solution to that problem.

    As mentioned above that could now be achieved via widening the one way route via old downs road and making a better connnection to the road under Barry's Bridge.

    Or even better take a link road off the roundabout at Farrankelly Road at connect it to the R762. This is something that WCC have proposed before, in 1999 and 2004 Development plans.

    Or even better do both the link road route and widen the Old Down's Road route.

    The solution to the problems here can be provided at lower cost and lower environmental and visual impact than the solution they are proposing. The above will also work better in practice than the flyover.



  • Advertisement


  • is building a new road going to be cheaper and lower environmental impact than connecting 2 existing roads with a flyover?

    (there's already a road between those 2 points, it's very narrow though and the 2nd bit of it is private. You can walk it - it's part of the old mass path right-of-way, but there's a gate blocking vehicles)





  • Yes, I think it will be.

    In pure euro per metre terms the cost of building a raised road is significantly higher than the equivalent distance on the ground. No idea of the exact length required but in order to accommodate the gradual rise and fall it looks to be at least 400m of flyover required.

    On top of that they need to build new access road from the R762 on the Delgany side under/alongside flyover to provide access to the house with gate lodge and the houses on the laneway beside. They also need to build a new access road on the other side to provide access to the house at the bottom of old Willow Grove road.

    In the other it is one road. Or as you point out there is an existing narrow road. They could widen that. Yes part of it is private but they could CPO that. The flyover option involves CPOing land too.

    On top of that the euro per metre cost they have to consider the economic cost of the disruption while building it. There is no doubt the works involve doing all of this will necessitate considerable lane closures/diversions etc on the N11. Connecting the R762 to Farrankelly road would cause far less disruption.

    From an environmental impact point of view in order to accommodate the flyover and necessary access road the stand of 200+ year old beech trees and the old stone walls is right in the firing line. Driving up from Barry's Bridge those trees contribute a huge mount to the rural landscape and biodiversity as well as providing much needed noise and visual screening. Although it is very close to the N11 that area is actually very well insulated from it. If they are all gone to be replaced by a raised road and a new access road, it utterly destroys the local landscape.

    On top of that the flyover is right in the line of sight of a protected view, listed in the development plan - the view looking south from the higher path running along the northern boundary of the Golf Course with the Glen of the Downs. If they build this flyover you'll be looking straight at it, and it's accompanying infrastructure from that point.





  • Tbh, I think you're wasting your time and energy looking for other options no matter how rational or how much sense they make to us on an infrastructure forum. From what I've witnessed both on Facebook and hearing other peoples views, nothing will stop them objecting. They aren't looking at it in a pragmatic view, they aren't looking at the bigger picture. No matter what Arup come up with, it will spark an outcry and social media outrage. The main objectives of the upgrade plan seem to be lost on them.





  • I don't think the objectives are lost on them, more that they're just not important to local residents - for them the N11 is a local road. In fairness, trying to take local traffic off the N11 to make it effectively a motorway (even if it can't be redesignated) only highlights the fact that it's still, after all the upgrades, an old coach road that's been widened.





  • @prunudo @loyatemu There is a lot of truth in what you both say re local objections, but that's what irritates me most about Harris and Mitchell's input. They should know better and it is irresponsible to be whipping up a frenzy of nimbyism just because they hope it will be remembered at election time irrespective of the outcome.

    Another positive of my alternative to the flyover is it provides a compromise to appease those upset by the closure of junction 10. Closing J10 and asking the Delgany residents to take a circuitous route heading west first via Willow Grove and then back over the road, has annoyed people not just because of the added inconvenience and journey time. Not all will admit it, but a lot are insulted by the proposal as it feels like Delgany does not have its own junction, it has to make do with sharing Kilpedder's.

    Extending the R762 to the Farrankelly road answers this gripe. Delgany has its own access, on the Delgany side and the only difference is it has moved about 1 kilometre. If the cost of improved traffic flow and road safety on the N11 is moving Delgany junction 1km can they really complain? Can Minister Harris really stand up and say "This is totally unacceptable"?





  • Is it a WCC decision either way? My understanding it's TII project being managed (as a local government shared service) by Kildare Co Co. I know WCC are the sponsoring council, but are they decision makers?





  • As far as I understand it, WCC is the decision making authority. But it would be vey difficult for them to go against whatever recommendations ARUP make. If WCC have strong feelings on something presumably they make them known to ARUP prior to publication of any decisions.





  • Just a reminder that submissions have to be in by tomorrow for this latest public consultation. Even if you are in favour you should let them know any positive or negative feedback no matter how small they are. There are plenty of social media campaigns against certain elements so I fear they will be unindated with negativity which unfortunately could lead to a further fudge.





  • Any chance you could share a direct link?



  • Advertisement


  • I couldn't find a direct link or official form so just emailed a submission to their email address.

    [email protected]



Advertisement