machaseh wrote: » It also doesn't have to be 2 tracks all the way to wicklow town, it is okay to have stretches of single track when necessary as long as they are laid out carefully so that a good frequency of say one train every 20 mins can be achieved.
loyatemu wrote: » Bray Head is the expensive and awkward bit, and Bray-Greystones is where the double-tracking is really needed. By comparison, half of the Greystones-Wicklow section was previously double-track and the whole thing would be straightforward enough (there are also plans for greenway along that section). Having single track sections makes railway operations more difficult and prone to disruption in the case of trains running late, better to do the whole lot.
schmittel wrote: » Went to a public meeting about this tonight organised by the M11 Friday 13th group. Some interesting contributions but overall a bit chaotic I thought. Like the UK Parliament discussing Brexit, plenty of agreement on what they don't want but impossible to get a consensus on what they do want!
Kian Fast Photography wrote: » What do they not want? Is it a group of locals who don't want any offline routes?
Macy0161 wrote: » Without being a rail engineer, I've always thought the option might be a looped line from Wicklow off the existing line, or just a re-routing from Bray along the N11 corridor (rather than widening for road), and back in through Bray/ Shankill.
prunudo wrote: » I came across this link which seems to be from a Kilmacanogue perspective and at least has some interesting alternatives.https://www.thisroadisadisaster.com
AAAAAAAAA wrote: » Far more reasonable than the Delgany heads, actual solutions presented.
davemcbuiop wrote: » Whatever about Kilmacanogue, the Glen of the Downs needs to be preserved. My proposal is to split the motorway north of the Glen, with the Glen itself acting as sort of a huge central median. The two lanes would then meet again south of the Glen. In future years who knows, the existing N11 through the Glen could be dug up and trees replanted there, restoring the Glen to its former glory:D. Or would this be too sensible for Ireland?
nordydan wrote: » Love the NRO proposals tab with the [URL="kttps://static.wixstatic.com/media/b58106_7c9b458b328341f68089a66fb95a6700~mv2_d_5184_3253_s_4_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_734,h_465,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/Collage%20of%20Road.webp"]CRAP[/URL] lorry at the back
marno21 wrote: » An elevated fully lit motorway across the side of a mountain with ~40% traffic being HGV. Very reasonable alright.
Skyfloater wrote: » Incorrect. There was general agreement and frustration that the far simpler and cheaper options of improving the frequency of the 133 bus route and addition of new routes, along with park and ride along the N11 corridor is being completely ignored. Also, there seems to be no plans to increase the number of trains south of Greystones either. As for not getting the finer details of the suggested alternative through Kilmacanogue up to your standards, these are ordinary people not road engineers! They're just trying not to have their homes bulldozed.
sideswipe wrote: » This whole 'put more buses on' is not going to solve the N11/M11 problems.
sideswipe wrote: » This whole 'put more buses on' is not going to solve the N11/M11 problems. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, of course public transport needs to be improved, perhaps even focused on to become a viable option for people. But the road itself is simply not fit for purpose and needs to be sorted . This thread is primarily about the different options to upgrade the N11 to the M11 between J14 and J4 and in so doing sort out the pinch points of GOTD's and Kilmac. Perhaps a new thread in relation to the mess that is the bus and rail services that is forcing people into their cars would be useful.
loyatemu wrote: » there's already a separate thread on the Bray-Greystones line. whilst the public consultation pays some lip-service to public transport, it does seem mostly focussed on "how do we upgrade the road" when it should be "how do we move Wicklow commuters more efficiently" because ultimately it's commuters we're talking about here. The existing road is more than sufficient to serve Wexford and Rosslare apart from about 2 hours a day in each direction. No amount of extra lanes will fix the commuting issue without a focus on public transport as well.
Jayuu wrote: » I may have missed it but is there a link somewhere to the route options? Couldn't seem to find anything when searching for it.
Skyfloater wrote: » The realignment of the N11 and creation of a separated lane for the South bound filling station at Kilmac was supposed to start this month. Has this been shelved now, anyone know?
SeanW wrote: » Again - and it seems necessary to repeat the point - this is about more than commuters. Again, look at this mess and explain - in the context of that - why a bypass should not be considered.
prunudo wrote: Still going ahead afaik, think there some concerns about the design from cycling groups.
loyatemu wrote: » Any proposals to widen the road to 6 lanes all the way to Ashford is absolutely about commuters. 6 lanes to J7 is probably required to resolve the merging problems with the M50 (and there is a plan for that dating back years), but beyond that it would just be catering to suburban sprawl.
Macy0161 wrote: » And resident access. But cyclists completely left out of the design, and actually put in a more dangerous position, with a lack of realistic alternatives. It's totally about commuters. Outside of rush hours, N/M11 is fine both ways and can more than cope with volumes, unless there is an incident.
loyatemu wrote: » A bypass of Kilmac may be an option (my main concern is the plans around GotD). I think Kilmac could also be fixed with a rebuild of J8 and new link roads - there's ample space to the south of the current flyover to build a proper junction . As I've said in previous posts, most of the unnumbered accesses could be closed tomorrow - the 3 at Kilpedder for example as all those roads can be accessed from J11. Quill Road LILO could be closed - it's accessible from J8 and J9. etc. Any proposals to widen the road to 6 lanes all the way to Ashford is absolutely about commuters. 6 lanes to J7 is probably required to resolve the merging problems with the M50 (and there is a plan for that dating back years), but beyond that it would just be catering to suburban sprawl.
