Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Snugborough Interchange Upgrade

135678

Comments

  • #62
    Phil.x
    Registered Users Posts: 1,722 ✭✭✭Phil.x


    They really need to minimise the cycling aspect of it, as it's just taking up valuable road space, its really only a token gesture as a minuscule amount of random people on bikes use it compared to real road users.


  • #63
    Jebus Diced
    Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭Jebus Diced


    Phil.x wrote: »
    They really need to minimise the cycling aspect of it, as it's just taking up valuable road space, its really only a token gesture as a minuscule amount of random people on bikes use it compared to real road users.

    Jaysus tonight :rolleyes:


  • #64
    daymobrew
    Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    Phil.x wrote: »
    They really need to minimise the cycling aspect of it, as it's just taking up valuable road space, its really only a token gesture as a minuscule amount of random people on bikes use it compared to real road users.
    real road users - that's a new patronising term that I haven't heard before.
    Of course if there were less of those real road users (and more of the randomers on bikes) the upgrade may not have been needed.

    And, because of induced demand, more motor traffic will probably use the upgraded junction and there won't be much of an improvement. For example, the M50 is as bad with 3 lanes as it was with 2.


  • #65
    jack presley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,687 ✭✭✭✭jack presley


    Ah come on guys, don't be feeding the troll.


  • #66
    raheny red
    Registered Users Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭raheny red


    As it is, I try not use that bridge when cycling. Too many HGVs using it for Ballycoolin Industrial Estate. Even walking across it is a bit of a pain.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,145 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    It's better to nip through via the hospital to avoid the bridge, traffic and those traffic lights.


  • #68
    daymobrew
    Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    Hurrache wrote: »
    It's better to nip through via the hospital to avoid the bridge, traffic and those traffic lights.
    Or the underpass beside the Garda station.


  • #69
    Gio2
    Registered Users Posts: 35 ✭Gio2


    Hurrache wrote: »
    It's better to nip through via the hospital to avoid the bridge, traffic and those traffic lights.

    If you are lucky enough to have a pass


  • #70
    Pat Dunne
    Registered Users Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭Pat Dunne


    Gio2 wrote: »
    If you are lucky enough to have a pass

    Sure who needs a Pass or the Rules of the road when you’re a Cyc1|§[ ;)


  • #71
    raheny red
    Registered Users Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭raheny red


    https://twitter.com/Fingalcoco/status/1359117979821215749?s=19


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    ongarboy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,201 ✭✭✭ongarboy


    raheny red wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/Fingalcoco/status/1359117979821215749?s=19

    Hmm....Just as BAM are in the news today for major cost overruns and delays at their Children's hospital project...never seems to stop them winning new taxpayer funded projects...


  • #73
    IngazZagni
    Registered Users Posts: 1,585 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    Good link showing the changes here.

    https://irishcycle.com/2017/01/15/massive-blanchardstown-road-interchange-upgrade-mixes-cycling-and-walking/

    I've looked closely at these new layouts and all I see is a confusing mess. More lanes but I don't see how it will reduce congestion in any meaningful way. Do others see it differently?


  • #74
    TheChrisD
    Registered Users Posts: 4,487 ✭✭✭TheChrisD


    IngazZagni wrote: »
    I've looked closely at these new layouts and all I see is a confusing mess. More lanes but I don't see how it will reduce congestion in any meaningful way. Do others see it differently?

    Nope, it will remain a mess. It's to be expected when it's essentially six different entrance/exits all converging on one junction complex.
    image.png




  • #75
    AlanG
    Registered Users Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭AlanG


    IngazZagni wrote: »
    I've looked closely at these new layouts and all I see is a confusing mess. More lanes but I don't see how it will reduce congestion in any meaningful way. Do others see it differently?

    it's very hard to see how there will be any increase in green light time for any entry point so it is likely to remain with a 5 minute dwell for each light cycle. There will be a slight increase in throughput on the extra lanes but overall seems a poorly designed option.


  • #76
    raheny red
    Registered Users Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭raheny red


    The pedestrian tunnel will be potentially closed for a year...


  • #77
    daymobrew
    Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    raheny red wrote: »
    The pedestrian tunnel will be potentially closed for a year...
    Wow, they really don't give a toss about pedestrians.

    The proposed diversion forces you to wait at 2 pedestrian crossings and could easily add 5 mins to your journey (I think it's about 2.5min between sequences at the existing interchange).


  • #78
    IngazZagni
    Registered Users Posts: 1,585 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    That's outrageous. Absolutely no need for it to be closed for a full year. They could do the works they have to do at the Old corduff Road end and provide a pedestrian entrance even if it means temporarily altering its entrance slightly.
    Let's not forget that a connection to Waterville Park within this pedestrian connection continues to remain closed for years due to works by Irish Water.

    Pedestrians simply don't matter.


  • #79
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,776 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    IngazZagni wrote: »
    That's outrageous. Absolutely no need for it to be closed for a full year. They could do the works they have to do at the Old corduff Road end and provide a pedestrian entrance even if it means temporarily altering its entrance slightly.
    Let's not forget that a connection to Waterville Park within this pedestrian connection continues to remain closed for years due to works by Irish Water.

    Pedestrians simply don't matter.

    You obviously have no idea how contracts are managed as regards health and safety.

    5 minutes? On your actual journey? Oh Jesus.


  • #80
    IngazZagni
    Registered Users Posts: 1,585 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    You obviously have no idea how contracts are managed as regards health and safety.

    5 minutes? On your actual journey? Oh Jesus.

    There is absolutely no reason they couldn't provide a temporary stairway to access the other side of Snugborough Road. You can be damn sure that they wouldn't have proposed closing a road for a year. Ah sure take another route that takes an extra 5 minutes. No that wouldn't be accepted.

    No I don't know how contracts are managed but I can tell you that it's lazy planning. Couldn't be bothered to find a solution because of how difficult the legal framework in this Country makes it so the easiest solution is to do what's being done.


  • #81
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,776 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Now you're getting it.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    lucernarian
    Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    You obviously have no idea how contracts are managed as regards health and safety.

    5 minutes? On your actual journey? Oh Jesus.
    Struggling to understand what point is being made here.


  • #83
    daymobrew
    Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    5 minutes? On your actual journey? Oh Jesus.
    Like lucernarian I am not sure whether you are being sarcastic or dismissive.

    5 mins is a decent amount of time and distance when walking - easily 500 metres.
    I'm going to email FCC to object to it.


  • #84
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,776 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Both. Its nothing.

    Your objection will be noted and no more I would imagine.


  • #85
    daymobrew
    Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Your objection will be noted and no more I would imagine.
    I wouldn't expect much more from FCC. They never act on any observations that I raise.


  • #86
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,776 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    daymobrew wrote: »
    I wouldn't expect much more from FCC. They never act on any observations that I raise.

    Has it occured to you that there may be many reasons why they cannot? Your suggestions may exceed the safety requirements of particular contracts or other statutory obligations.


  • #87
    daymobrew
    Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Has it occured to you that there may be many reasons why they cannot? Your suggestions may exceed the safety requirements of particular contracts or other statutory obligations.
    If road builders can manage to facilitate thousands of cars right beside where they are working (think N7 expansion project) then I am confident that they can accommodate a few pedestrians safely.

    If the contracts caused this then it's proof that FCC doesn't care about pedestrians (no local authority does).

    I'm not a road or safety engineer so it's not my role to tell them the solution but I chose to highlight the inconvenience to pedestrians.


  • #88
    Caranica
    Registered Users Posts: 9,998 ✭✭✭Caranica


    Council cut down a load of trees between the path and the road on the Waterville side of the road between the roundabout and the hospital today. Felt like it's something to do with the works but not sure how


  • #89
    raheny red
    Registered Users Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭raheny red


    How close is the new bridge going to be to the last remaining bungalow at the tunnel? :eek: That house has seen some amount of changes around it the past few decades!


  • #90
    ongarboy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,201 ✭✭✭ongarboy


    Caranica wrote: »
    Council cut down a load of trees between the path and the road on the Waterville side of the road between the roundabout and the hospital today. Felt like it's something to do with the works but not sure how

    I notice all the trees and shrubbery on the N3 verge in front of Ebay have been cleared too since I was last in the area.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    raheny red
    Registered Users Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭raheny red


    Roadworks starting next month.


Advertisement