KrisW1001 wrote: » 2.3 billion is nonsense. Probably from the same sage who said M20 would cost three billion...
Steve012 wrote: » It's well over 1 billion I heard, close to 2.3 mate!
prunudo wrote: » For what its worth, I've no idea where the €1bn even came from, I can't see how it will cost that much unless they plan to tunnel the whole project. My point was really though that as time goes on €1bn isn't as much as it used to be when it comes to infrastructure and we need to start accepting that large scale building projects are going to start having big figures attached to them as both construction costs increase and as is evident lately, increasing likelihoods of legal challenges with the associated professional fees.
donvito99 wrote: » The problem isn't the price tag, it's the opportunity cost and the benefit. If the Glen of the Downs was still an old style N road - one lane in each direction plus hard shoulders - then a motorway as is proposed now is the solution. We have a dual carriageway already. It is not perfect by any means, but to spend a billion to shave a couple of minutes off the journey (off peak) and put the tail backs somewhere else at peak times, is almost criminal. Close the dangerous junctions, stick in an overbridge where necessary, reduce to 80kph in other parts if necessary and spend the billion quid on infrastructure that actually reduces congestion.
prunudo wrote: » 2003 believe it or not so not far off. Just regarding the mention of a €1bn price tag. We need to stop focusing on what big infrastructure costs. Whether they upgrade the n11 or the trainline (I believe we need both) its going to be an eye watering price tag. Construction prices are continually going up and the process to get projects even through planning is taking longer and longer. Some sort of plan is needed and needs to be stuck to without the meddling of politicians for their own point scoring exercises.
Carawaystick wrote: » The junctions at Kilpeddar and Willow Grove were shut more recently than that
punisher5112 wrote: » Yes but this isn't happening, it's left like it is the last 22-23 years..... It will be happening in these changes to motorway though, well that's obviously the plan.
punisher5112 wrote: » The sooner that numpty transport minister is gone the better, he wants us all walking or cycling.
punisher5112 wrote: » So again the powers that be never learn..... The sooner that numpty transport minister is gone the better, he wants us all walking or cycling.
prunudo wrote: » Unfortunately, while it would be great to think numbers will continue to be low, eventually the volumes will return and probably be worse than ever in a year or two. The volume of house building in the area is crazy and that will only lead to one thing as there isn't enough local employment being created. While working from home will help, it won't be the golden goose some hope for.
Steve012 wrote: » I heard its more than 1 billion.
marno21 wrote: » Where did the 1 billion price tag come from?
KrisW1001 wrote: » Most road tunnels are curved. The Dublin Port Tunnel has two very long bends in it to avoid areas where the ground was expensive to tunnel through. The Jack Lynch Tunnel in Cork is also curved. Only the Shannon Tunnel is straight.
KrisW1001 wrote: » https://n11m11.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Public-Consultation-Interim-Update-DEC-2020-For-Publishing.pdf A tunnel was proposed between two points on the existing road, but that does not mean a tunnel will go directly under the road - that idea is down to journalists failing at reading comprehension again. I suspect it would go to the west, between the current road and the Cyan option, which has also proceeded to the next phase. Looking at the Cyan option to the West of the Glen, it is either going to need very deep cuttings or some tunnelled sections too.
KrisW1001 wrote: » The tunnelled route option is a good distance to the west of the current N11.
punisher5112 wrote: » The only way it could work is if it were off to the side where works could then be done up until changeover. I don't see that happening.
josip wrote: » As regards the loss of woodland, why don't they CPO some of the farmland either side of the N11 and adjacent to the current woodland. Play the long game and plant it with the same "stuff" that's in the current woodland, build a couple of wildlife bridges like these, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/23/how-wildlife-crossings-are-helping-reindeer-bears-and-even-crabs-aoe and widen the N11 to 3 lane motorway? It'd be much cheaper than a tunnel and the woodland cover could increase without the massive costs of an alternative route/tunnel.
schmittel wrote: » I think the tunnel is a crazy idea because of the problems building it whilst trying to keep the corridor open for traffic at the same time. I'm assuming it's a pretty major engineering project and not likely to be possible to happily work away without huge problems.
KrisW1001 wrote: » That's all fine, but it doesn't solve the need for a safe, efficient corridor for road freight, which will be much more evident as continental transport shifts from the UK land-bridge and Dublin Port to direct sailings into Rosslare. The current N11 is a dog's dinner - too narrow to add bus-lanes, too many junctions for efficient (and lower emission) travel, too many on-road developments. It's basically a local road, but for lack of any alternatives, it has to function as a long-distance national route too. I know the tunnel option is prohibitively expensive, but I think it's the only one that has a positive impact on everyone (except the exchequer, of course...). The current N11 can get a proper dedicated public transport corridor, a toll-for-cars tunnel like M50 is can keep lorries out of the Glen, and in combination with reducing the existing road to bus+bus plus single carriageway plus cycleways will still discourage increased car commuting. Also, by going under properties, through what is mostly granite, removes the problems of CPO and loss of woodland. It's a shame it's multiple times the cost of the alternatives, really... of all the options, it's the only one that would come close to the imaginary "billion euros" figure that people are bandying about.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Closing entrances and formalising junctions is required for safety and capacity reasons whether the road becomes motorway or not.
