prunudo wrote: » Are you proposing this new junction to be built on the marshy wetlands just to the south west of the current junction?
loyatemu wrote: » not a full new junction, move the on/off ramps further south and close the mess around Kilmac village. TBH I'd forgotten there was a marsh there so it may not be an option.
SeanW wrote: » For the last time:Not all roads - including motorways - are built to facilitate commuters. This can be verified by looking at a road map of Ireland for 5 seconds. So far as I am aware, no-one is claiming that a new motorway route is going to fix everything. As far as I am aware, most on this forum do see the need for and are in support of public transport. In places the current route tries to be both a long distance road and village street. It fails as both. Just look at Kilmacanoge. This is why a motorway bypass is/should be considered. 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.
Vic_08 wrote: » Nonsense. I regularly travel Dublin-Wexford off-peak or contra-peak and Kilmac is at most a minor inconvenience, slow to 60 for less than a miniute southbound and bang the CC back on. The only justification for building a new alignment is to cater for commuter traffic volumes which is just going to allow even higher volumes to converge on the next pinch point as has happened with the M7 widening. Providing public transport solutions INSTEAD of facilitating ever increasing volumes of unsustainable car commuting is the only thing that will solve the traffic issues on the N11, or at least provide an alternative for those who switch. The argument that PT can also be done but we must build more roads for cars is no more than a mask for those who are insistent on having their selfish and damaging car use catered for no matter what.It is plainly obvious that many want public transport for others so long as they can continue with their car commuting unhindered. At this point more road building of this type is nothing more than a subsidy for this behaviour and a scandalous waste of public money.
prunudo wrote: » But this is exactly the jist of a large majority of the local opposition to this project. They want everyone else to use public transport so they can continue to use a national road as a local road. There's 2 options, either new alignments or a combination of parallel link roads and minor road junction closures. The road isn't fit for purpose and people who keep shouting public transport are completely missing the point of this proposed upgrade.
Vic_08 wrote: » Nonsense. I regularly travel Dublin-Wexford off-peak or contra-peak and Kilmac is at most a minor inconvenience, slow to 60 for less than a miniute southbound and bang the CC back on.
The only justification for building a new alignment is to cater for commuter traffic volumes which is just going to allow even higher volumes to converge on the next pinch point as has happened with the M7 widening.
Providing public transport solutions INSTEAD of facilitating ever increasing volumes of unsustainable car commuting is the only thing that will solve the traffic issues on the N11, or at least provide an alternative for those who switch.
The argument that PT can also be done but we must build more roads for cars is no more than a mask for those who are insistent on having their selfish and damaging car use catered for no matter what. It is plainly obvious that many want public transport for others so long as they can continue with their car commuting unhindered.
At this point more road building of this type is nothing more than a subsidy for this behaviour and a scandalous waste of public money.
prunudo wrote: » Seen that before (quite regular at the southbound Kilmac garage, albeit 60kph here) and the worst thing about it, there already is an alternative entrance into the garden centre off the Glenview flyover.
machaseh wrote: » Then why not start at physically closing off all entrances on this road that are not absolutely vital for access to the premises? That could literally be done next week.
josip wrote: » Also, you can't just remove entrances/right of ways at the stroke of a pen. I think there's a fair bit of process involved.
schmittel wrote: » ARUP guys also said that the council cannot make a change that means a property has no access. If they want to close the access they have to CPO the strip of land that has the access and ensure that property has another point of access either in a safer place on the same road, or create new access on different boundary of property to an existing road, or create a new road to the different boundary! And if none of the above is possible they have to CPO the entire property in order to shut the access! A fair bit of process indeed!
donvito99 wrote: » Moreso that an entirely new motorway alignment costing hundreds of millions through a sensitive, populated area and years of a fraught, contentious and drawn out planning process?
schmittel wrote: » If you mean the Glen of the Downs there is no way they will get a motorway through there, and won't even try to get planning for one. If they are hell bent on a motorway it will be one of the offline options. If they don't have the stomach for that they will try and squeeze some sort of fudge, increased capacity but non motorway standard solution through the Glen and hope for the best.
machaseh wrote: » And is it not allowed in Ireland to simply build a parallel frontage road along the main road and give the property access to that without a CPO procedure? Because at least in my country (the Netherlands) this happens all the time; when a major road with properties along it has to be upgraded, we just build a parallel local access road to the side, and to my knowledge no special procedures are required for this. These parallel frontage roads also often double as a cycling path (cyclists + local motorists accessing the properties + tractors and the like).
prunudo wrote: » And revisit it in 2040 when they realise that they made a mess of it again. If they do go with a red route upgrade it needs to be done right and should be future proofed.
BarryD2 wrote: » I can recall the road through the Glen of the Downs in the 1970s when it was just a narrow two way road, only the odd passing car at night. The glen road has gone through iterations since then but it's hard to see how you could enlarge it any further without completely sacrificing the valley floor. You see roads on the continent that are raised on pillars/ stilts - maybe that's the future here through the glen and on past Kilmac etc.
loyatemu wrote: » what exactly does that mean though - how do you future proof a road upgrade when it is well established that increased capacity generates increased traffic? No amount of capacity is enough - it's the wrong approach.
prunudo wrote: » Just that it should accommodate all users. No point cpo'ing 5m off peoples gardens every few years because they only allowed for bus lanes but not cyclest or pedestrians. We are where we are because they allowed so many local and private access in the last upgrade. As usual we are paying the price for half baked infrastructure.
prunudo wrote: » Agree, but you and me seem to be the only 2 that see it from this point of view.
schmittel wrote: » Sadly you're right. It is frustrating because anything else goes against all logic. Not building a motorway here undermines all the existing investment in the M11 at Arklow and Enniscorthy. I have had many conversations in real life along the lines of: "Do you agree that it is inevitable that one day there will be a continuous motorway along this stretch of road, connecting North Wicklow and Dublin - i.e it is supposed to be one of the major strategic roads in Europe, never mind Ireland?" "Yes, absolutely, that makes sense." "And do you agree that because of the European laws protecting the Glen, that motorway can never be built by upgrading the road through the Glen?" "Yes, absolutely, they have to abide by the law" "So if a) they have to build a motorway and b) they cannot build it in the Glen, what options are they left with?" "Ah hang on, more roads are not the answer, at least definitely not in my back yard, yadda yadda yadda"
machaseh wrote: » The correct answer is to double track and electrify the train line at least to Wicklow town and preferably even much farther south first + extend Luas green to Bray, so that massive amounts of commuters can now take the train/Luas rather than stay in traffic. Then when there are still dangerous situations on the current N11 and major congestion issues, we can talk about a new motorway.
ECONOMY Improve the efficiency of the N11/M11 corridor between Junction 4 and Junction 14 Improve efficiency, reliability and journey times within European Route 1 (E01) Improve connectivity with the wider European market by reliability of journey time between ports and ease of movement Improve resilience of the Irish market by improving connectivity to Rosslare Europort and the wider European market Generate positive economic benefits to road users: Reducing journey times; and Improving journey time reliability.SAFETY • To reduce the frequency and severity of collisions on the M11/N11 corridor between Junction 4 and Junction 14; and • To support the Government’s Road Safety Strategy.ENVIRONMENTTo reduce CO2 emissions and particulate emissions through a reduction in fuel consumption; and • To manage noise impacts in populated areas. • To minimise the impact on designated Natura 2000 sites • To seek to preserve existing well established communitiesACCESSIBILITY & INCLUSION • To provide a corridor that will encourage and support investment and employment in the wider area; • To improve road based public transport journey time and journey time reliability; and • To achieve the objective of national, regional and local planning policy.INTEGRATION To improve connectivity to the national road network; • To provide continuity of road type between Junction 6 and Junction 15; • To improve connectivity to Rosslare Europort; • To be compatible with adopted land use objectives; and • To complement wider government policyPHYSICAL ACTIVITY Promoting walking and cycling by providing a safer environment for nonmotorised road users
schmittel wrote: » The debate about east coast rail capacity is a separate issue, although undoubtedly an increase in train users would have a positive effect on the N11. But how many of the scheme specific objectives to this proposed project would an increase in the rail capacity achieve: From the Project Brief at https://n11m11.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PAG-Unit-3.0-Project-Brief-V3.pdf :- Even if you had the best rail system upgrade imaginable how many of the above objectives would that achieve? I've italicised the ones I think would be achieved. In other words, very few of them. An offline motorway in conjunction with prioritising public transport and local access on the existing road would arguably achieve all of them.
machaseh wrote: » Which ones would it? I've coloured them red. Mind, you I am NOT against building a motorway to increase road safety in the area and get long distance and heavy traffic out of the village. But improving public transportation should be the priority here. ECONOMY Improve the efficiency of the N11/M11 corridor between Junction 4 and Junction 14 Fewer commuters on the road, so more space for lorries and long distance traffic.Improve efficiency, reliability and journey times within European Route 1 (E01) Fewer commuters on the road, so more space for lorries and long distance traffic.Improve connectivity with the wider European market by reliability of journey time between ports and ease of movement Fewer commuters = more space for lorries, as well as more possibilities for freight trains on the railway line and more passenger trains to Rosslare Europort.Improve resilience of the Irish market by improving connectivity to Rosslare Europort and the wider European market Fewer commuters = more space for lorries, as well as more possibilities for freight trains on the railway line and more passenger trains to Rosslare Europort. Generate positive economic benefits to road users:Reducing journey times; and Trains could be sped up by several orders of magnitude getting people from country wicklow into Dublin much quicker. Even remaining road users will face less congestion and thus better journey times.Improving journey time reliability. Fewer train delays due to lack of capacity on the railway line, and less congestion on the road due to less commuters. SAFETY • To reduce the frequency and severity of collisions on the M11/N11 corridor between Junction 4 and Junction 14; and • To support the Government’s Road Safety Strategy. ENVIRONMENT To reduce CO2 emissions and particulate emissions through a reduction in fuel consumption; and Especially if the railway will be electrified but even without.• To manage noise impacts in populated areas. Fewer commuters on the road is less noise• To minimise the impact on designated Natura 2000 sites railway doesnt run through the Glen • To seek to preserve existing well established communities ACCESSIBILITY & INCLUSION• To provide a corridor that will encourage and support investment and employment in the wider area; Just look at the current developments in Greystones. All of wicklow is going to be booming with a proper train line. • To improve road based public transport journey time and journey time reliability; and • To achieve the objective of national, regional and local planning policy. INTEGRATION To improve connectivity to the national road network; • To provide continuity of road type between Junction 6 and Junction 15;• To improve connectivity to Rosslare Europort; Freight and passenger trains • To be compatible with adopted land use objectives; and • To complement wider government policy PHYSICAL ACTIVITY Promoting walking and cycling by providing a safer environment for nonmotorised road users
