D.L.R. wrote: » Building it is going to be a nightmare. Might be cheaper to just move Kilmacanogue...
jvan wrote: » When they did the work 15 years ago they should have bypassed it.
nordydan wrote: » But if they had bypassed Kilmacanogue we'd have no fun playing the "game of death" with the cars exiting the filling station at the R755 junction :-) See my previous post here for information I posted previously (nearly 7 years ago!)
jvan wrote: » That's true, but it's not just the garage, you've got the entrance to lavender field, 2 or 3 houses, entrance to some industrial units, entrance to Kelly recovery, the bus stop, the entrance to Glen fuels, entrance to topaz, exit of topaz, entrance to another house and then the turn of for the r755 all within about 300m. Then add into the mix the people who slow down in the mainline rather than using the hard shoulder and it really is "game of death"
Bray Head wrote: » The road really should have been diverted between Kilcroney and Kilmacanogue (here: http://osm.org/go/es~MCG8u?m=&node=1418279174) and followed a line east of the existing road for about 2 kilometres before going through GoD. It is all only farmland. It would have made Kilmacanogue a much nicer and safer place and for easier upgrades over time.
spacetweek wrote: » I gotta say that some of that sounds a little optimistic. Not sure how you could turn the N4 Lucan Bypass into a motorway due to footpaths everywhere and it'd be very hard to widen the N11 as far as the Glen of the Downs without having to demolish a lot of houses around Kilmacanogue.
BoatMad wrote: » plenty of unused carriageway space at Killmacanogue ,three lanes entirely possible ( hard shoulder could be dispensed with for example ) , in fact just shutting down dual carriageway access to the filing station and increasing the road speed limit would solve 90% of all the problems there anyway
Carawaystick wrote: » you'ld need to provide an access route to Woodlands Academy The Lavender place the houses and businesses before the petrol station The houses on the west of the road south of Kilmac and to the nature reserve and alternative access for cyclists from Newtownmountkennedy to Bray. And all for what? a blue line on a map?
BoatMad wrote: » never said it had to be a motorway , the primary issue at Kil mac, is the speed slow down...
Carawaystick wrote: » When are these jams? I've never seen them, Seen jams at the M11/M50 merge and coming up the hill to Bray south, but not at Kilmac. No Hard shoulder is fairly intimidating for cyclists, and probably less safe than the existing setup. The exit of the petrol station issue could be solved by painting a solid white line to the left of the dashed line, and prosecuting those breaking it.
Carawaystick wrote: » When are these jams? I've never seen them, Seen jams at the M11/M50 merge and coming up the hill to Bray south, but not at Kilmac.
NiallBoo wrote: » well bray south is a whole other story... You see build-up and serve slowing between bray-south and kilmac very often. The idea is that the slowing coming into kilmac is what causes the delay. When people slow down, the ones behind them usually slow more, until it's crawling further back - so that although kilmac is flowing fine, the root of the problem is here and the effects are only felt further back.
Carawaystick wrote: » No Hard shoulder is fairly intimidating for cyclists, and probably less safe than the existing setup. The exit of the petrol station issue could be solved by painting a solid white line to the left of the dashed line, and prosecuting those breaking it.
NiallBoo wrote: » Seeing as its such a heavily used route for cyclist it might be a good idea to incorporate a dedicated cycle route into plans. The current set-up must be putting some off as it is.
BoatMad wrote: » I have yet to see thousands of cyclists peddling through Kilmacanogue
NiallBoo wrote: » It's one of the ways up into the Wicklow mountains, though I suppose the other ones are more popular.
BoatMad wrote: » I know cycling now, is up there with God and religion , but just perhaps we might consider some more " earthly" problems as well, :pac:
NiallBoo wrote: » surely the lycra-clad monks of cycling are small-fry compared to the "Cult of the Car"? Anyway, this adversarial stuff really bugs me. Once you put a name on a group it's easy define them as the "other", blame them for everything and marginalize their wants and needs. People are just people trying to get from A to B and enjoy their lives.
BoatMad wrote: » I was merely responding to the comments that the problems at Kilmac needed to take account of cyclists
BoatMad wrote: » there is no " cult of the car"
i think it's normal practice to take account of anyone that uses something when you change it, as well a potential add-on benefits you could have from a scheme. What the result of that would be after analysis would remain to be seen.
BoatMad wrote: » There is no " cult of the car", there is clearly the "cult of the bike", true there are some petrol heads, but the vast vast majority of people have cars because they need them , ( which is not the reason most bikes are bought, because its a hobby )
Smoked Tuna wrote: » Any official plans about this or is it speculation