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

Building it is going to be a nightmare.

Might be cheaper to just move Kilmacanogue...

D.L.R. wrote: »

Building it is going to be a nightmare.

Might be cheaper to just move Kilmacanogue...

When they did the work 15 years ago they should have bypassed it. Keeping the road on its existing line has been a disaster. But ultimately the traffic problems in the evenings really stem from the lack of 3 lanes as far as the Bray south turn off. People trying to merge at Fassaroe are also restricted with the safety barrier in the hard shoulder at silver bridge.

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!)

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"

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.

In this country I'd nearly argue that 3 lanes has lower capacity than 2 because people don't understand the concept of keeping left.

Seems on the M50/M7 that more time is spent finding a way around the middle lane hoggers whereas on a 2-lane it's simple - wait patiently behind, maybe a quick flash of the lights, they understand and move. Do the same in the middle lane and when you eventually end up using Lane 3 to overtake you get looks of confusion from the bottom feeders behind the wheel.

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.

Yea I would have thought an m50/m11 widening scheme would have to stop certainly at the second Bray exit (fassaroe). There's a church and pedestrian bridge in extreme proximity to the road too around the third Bray exit (the one onto the Herbert Road before Bray south, also opposite enniskerry exit on northbound carriage)

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

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?

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.

cyclists have no place on such roads and the debate to accommodate them elsewhere is separate and not a function of the issues here. in effect that statement is a red herring


The jams on the lead up to Bray South , are in the main caused by both the overloaded Bray South and the severe reduction in speed limits at Killmac

Its a proven fact that reduction in speed on a motorway cause traffic to actually halt several miles back

simply making the kilmac road safer and rising the limits to 100km would have a major effect

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.

It was demonstrated to me very clearly a few weeks back, a trivial accident on the n4/m4, which caused rubber necking resulted in a snail pace queue back to the M50, yet when you got to the site of the accident , the road become virtually completely clear

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.

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.

perhaps, I mighty suggest that the provision of a cycleway is a separate issue to solving the mess that is the Bray bypass.,

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.

I was merely responding to the comments that the problems at Kilmac needed to take account of cyclists , whilst I would argue that accommodating them in the margins of busy dual carriageways is not the best idea and best handled separately.

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 )

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.

I didnt have that cyclists should be accounted for , I merely was trying to say that in the scheme of things the problems of the bray bypass need to be fixed irrespective of the effect directly in cyclists, and if there is a material effect, they should be catered for elsewhere

Any official plans about this or is it speculation

spacetweek wrote: »

and their hatred for cyclists and pedestrians. .

If anything there is a hatred of the virtually non-existent enforcement of regulations for cyclists (and pedestrians, to a very limited extent due to the limited regulations there); nothing more.

I can count on one hand the number of times I've nearly been mown down by a motorist - twice at the one traffic light which used to be the first a driver would encounter coming off a motorway.

I can't count on all my extremities the times I've nearly been mown down by a cyclist and I run out of fingers counting the times I've been hit by a cyclist at lights in the Docklands alone - there are a number of junctions where I have seen 100% of a substantial number of bikes sailing through red lights with green pedestrian sequences.

When we start seeing cyclists getting appropriate fines (and punishment in default) for their actions, that "hatred" will go away.

BoatMad wrote: »

This is a thread about the N11 widening , not a cycling thread ,there are loads of those one boards where you can have a go at each other

Yes, 100% please, the whole of last page was also all about cycling as far as I remember!!

WCC have a document with cycle routes along the N11 south from where the M11 ends at Bray to Kilmac. A route from the GLenview to Greystones also, and none from the Glenview to Kilmac, suggesting a motorway or elimination of hard shoulders is planned.

loyatemu wrote: »

that document is WCC's bit of the National Cycle Network - none of the proposed network is on the hard shoulders of DCs as they're horrible to cycle on even where it is permitted.

The lines along the N11 at Bray and Kilmac are cycle lanes on the proposed collector roads that are outlined in the document linked in post #31, not on the N11 itself.

Even with the collector roads and closing of accesses it will be tricky to upgrade the N11 to M with the mess at Kilmac and stuff like this

single vehicle access is not the issue, the issue is merely the slow down due to the issues at Kilmac,

jvan wrote: »

This popped up on my fb feed
https://www.facebook.com/Kilmacanogue-says-NO-to-major-new-roadway-989303001179659/

Looking at Google maps there could be a route through farmland and not on the little Sugarloaf as the group says but I'm unsure what the actual route is. Will have to do some more digging on the wicklow coco site.
If it means the houses, units and garage entrances are closed off and given access from this new road I think it's a good idea.

It's a load of nonsense.

The road would skirt around the bottom of the Little Sugarloaf from the Woodies roundabout to the roundabout on the southbound side of the Kilmacanoge junction, roughly following the line between the farmland and the open heathland. It does not go "over" or "across" the Little Sugarloaf at all, as claimed.

The person behind this campaign just so happens to live in a house on Bohilla Lane just off the Kilmac roundabout so the road would go right past her house, which is why I assume she's campaigning against it, rather than for any altruistic reasons.

There's some maps on her website here ... http://www.thisroadispointless.com/

jvan wrote: »

Only problem with that road that I can see is that it won't solve the problem of the private and access directly to the n11

As far as I can see it's just one small part of a larger scheme outlined in the Wicklow CC Development Plan, so shouldn't be viewed in isolation. I haven't had the time, or indeed the inclination, to download and read through the entire plan though.

Yes, I think the idea is also to take some of the pressure off Hill's roundabout too.

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Yeah I think they may also be hoping all the traffic choking Windgates out of Greystones into Bray would go through Glen of the Downs and up the new link road.

there's a longer term plan for a Northern Access Road into Greystones from Kilmac. That actually would go over the side of the Little Sugar Loaf.

This new road from Bray to Kilmac appears to go through Brennanstown Riding School, they've already posted about it on their facebook page, encouraging people to sign the petition.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Despite the 2 being linked by a dual carriageway?

Which is a good distance to the south of Greystones itself. Nobody living in, say Redford Park, who wants to get onto the N11 northbound is going to drive through Greystones town or Killincarrig heading in the wrong direction to get to that road, only to have to head back the way they've just driven. It's just shy of 7km from the Blacklion traffic lights to the Bray South junction, 16km if you go via Greystones town and aforementioned dual carriageway.