josip wrote: » What are the cost estimates of the road proposals and double tracking?
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.
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.
marno21 wrote: » and the N25 between Carrigtwohill and Midleton. .
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 thishttps://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.
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?
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.
Reuben1210 wrote: » Indeed, and what about the gap in the M6 at Athlone that isn't up to standard? Not as dangerous?
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.
L1011 wrote: » That's just a sign colour gap at this stage. Would have been redesignated except for local moans.
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.
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?
Reuben1210 wrote: » Was that the issue of using the tractors? Any hope it could eventually be redesignated?
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.
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....
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.
Tinley Purple Turpentine wrote: » Surely it's because of the car park entrance - the bend is the same in both directions.
prunudo wrote: » Yes and no, inner curve would always be tighter. But yes the entrance and narrow hard shoulder wouldn't help matters either.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
