prunudo wrote: » The accesses wouldn't have to be closed if they chose an offline route. By detrunking the existing n11 it gives the route back to the communities for local accesd and doesn't cut them off any further. You also don't loose more of the Glen of the downs to roadway. The environmental laws are much stronger now than when the project was planned in the 90s, its going to be very difficult to satisfy a widening of the existing road through a special area of conservation.
loyatemu wrote: » except the offline options for going around the glen are, if anything, worse than the option of widening through the glen (possibly that's deliberate to soften us up to the idea of widening). The Glen already has a 4 lane highway going through it, if a gun was held to my head, I'd accept another 2 lanes added to that road before I'd accept the sort of heavy engineering required to go over the hills on either side.
only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned
If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected
Thud wrote: » it's mostly farmland (on a steep hill) and the military firing range
Tinley Purple Turpentine wrote: » The Kilpeddar range is long gone - you can barely make out the remains of the firing points and butts now.
prunudo wrote: » Oh dear, looks like they've used the same artist for their renders as the m28 steering group.https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=104568504356676&id=103469624466564
marno21 wrote: » "Alexa merge two pictures of Interstate interchanges in Houston and rural Wicklow"
AAAAAAAAA wrote: » Clearly this is a big deal, lets just demolish Delgany and let that be that.
schmittel wrote: » Looks like local opinion is coalescing against everything but some sort of fudge on the red route. Flyers are being handed out making a submission as easy as ticking a box. Except there is no box to tick saying I oppose the Red Route and I support Cyan/Orange/Pink!
Reati wrote: » I look forward to sitting in traffic for years to comes thanks to the unelected citizen defenders of wicklow.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Even if there was no opposition you would still be sitting in traffic for years to come, such is the length of time it takes to deliver a new motorway. Anyone who thinks that an offline motorway is the solution has to accept a further decade of sitting in traffic first.
prunudo wrote: » I've always viewed any plans in a pragmatic view. The road needs to be upgraded, but knocking every plan and proposal while posting sensationalist photos and articles isn't the answer either, I just hope these people are prepared for what may come with a red route upgrade. As I always say, be careful what you wish for.
schmittel wrote: » That sort of thinking led to the decision to widen it twenty years ago instead of a longer term solution. There were plenty of people saying then that it was a short sighted measure since it would have to be widened again in twenty years time.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Had an offline road been built twenty years ago, it would also be heavily congested today and it would still be feeding traffic into already congested roads. There would be people today calling for it to be widened, like with the N7. Fact is roads don't reduce traffic, they attract more. Roads are not a long term solution, it has been proven here and the world over.
prunudo wrote: » If they have built a proper offline route the traffic would be heavy but you wouldn't have the congestion you do now.
machaseh wrote: » Rather than widening the motorway, they could spend the money on electrifying + doubling the railway tracks between greystones and Wicklow Town, so that a fast commuter train service could be run. Then extend better local bus services into county Wicklow. Many people living in co. Wicklow and even Wexford have no option but to drive to dublin every day, as the train services are too slow and infrequent to be viable. Getting these people out of their cars and into the train to Dublin would substantially ease congestion on this road.
L1011 wrote: » The railway tracks aren't even double to Greystones. The cost of re-tunnelling Bray Head alone would likely exceed the cost of this project, before the further works and purchasing new EMUs
prunudo wrote: » Yes the trainline should be upgraded but that doesn't address the issues of local traffic mixing with mainline in the n11. Whether this is done via an offline route or as loyatemu has suggested via parallel link roads, the upgrading of the road is a must. As schmittel says the fact some local people are so dead against the various routes and wanting the red route is a knee jerk reaction. They are right to be worried and object but they seem to have little concern about the issues a red route upgrade will bring to the communities, residents and businesses along the existing n11.
loyatemu wrote: » they're purchasing new rolling stock anyway, the cost of a 3km tunnel with no stations is not as high as you think. If they go for all the offline options for the N11 I wouldn't expect much change from half a billion. Looking at the road option in isolation is poor planning, they say that much themselves in the consultation document, though there isn't much else in it to show how they are comparing the costs to other options.
