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

124678

Comments

  • #92
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Has anything started yet?


  • #93
    Pat Dunne
    Registered Users Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭Pat Dunne


    spacetweek wrote: »
    Has anything started yet?

    It depends what you mean by “anything”.
    Work in regard of clearing the site in preparation is ongoing for the last three weeks.


  • #94
    Caranica
    Registered Users Posts: 9,998 ✭✭✭Caranica


    Sliproad down into N3 inbound at Waterville roundabout is narrowed, only one lane available. They took down a load of trees on the Waterville side of the road towards the hospital.


  • #95
    raheny red
    Registered Users Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭raheny red


    spacetweek wrote: »
    Has anything started yet?

    The signage still says May with no specific date. One of the footpaths over the bridge was closed off yesterday. Pain in the hole with the buggy.


  • #96
    Caranica
    Registered Users Posts: 9,998 ✭✭✭Caranica


    raheny red wrote: »
    The signage still says May with no specific date. One of the footpaths over the bridge was closed off yesterday. Pain in the hole with the buggy.

    It's been closed intermittently over recent weeks. I've seen it both closed and open.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    daymobrew
    Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    raheny red wrote: »
    The signage still says May with no specific date. One of the footpaths over the bridge was closed off yesterday. Pain in the hole with the buggy.
    If there is a phone number to contact do so. Contact a councillor too.


  • #98
    daymobrew
    Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    The project has a website: https://www.snugboroughinterchange.ie/.

    And the diversion for pedestrians is shown there.


  • #99
    Phil.x
    Registered Users Posts: 1,722 ✭✭✭Phil.x


    daymobrew wrote: »
    The project has a website: https://www.snugboroughinterchange.ie/.

    And the diversion for pedestrians is shown there.

    Never really knew much about that pedestrian tunnel even after all the years I'm living in d15.
    Is/was it safe?


  • #100
    Caranica
    Registered Users Posts: 9,998 ✭✭✭Caranica


    Phil.x wrote: »
    Never really knew much about that pedestrian tunnel even after all the years I'm living in d15.
    Is/was it safe?

    I never saw any trouble or felt unsafe using it. Wouldn't have gone near it when dark but it was always in use, don't think I ever went from the village to Corduff end without meeting people.


  • #101
    raheny red
    Registered Users Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭raheny red


    Cycle through it after 10pm 4 times a week for over 2 years, barely ever see anyone. Maybe the proximity to the cop shop helps?

    Walking over the Snugborough Bridge today, seems like the N3 bus lane is closed off for a "slip road" into the road works site.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    The Dark Knight
    Registered Users Posts: 340 ✭✭The Dark Knight


    Have to say, the plans for this Junction really annoys me.
    All this work and tax payers money spent, without a freeflow movement in sight.
    May be some improvements in traffic flow due to more space to que cars, however we're definitely not going to get value for money in this upgrade.


  • #103
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    The Dark Knight wrote: »
    Have to say, the plans for this Junction really annoys me.
    All this work and tax payers money spent, without a freeflow movement in sight.
    May be some improvements in traffic flow due to more space to que cars, however we're definitely not going to get value for money in this upgrade.
    What??
    It's a junction right in the middle of residential areas. It needs to cater for traffic increase (with the extra lanes) but also walking and cycling. Freeflows impede pedestrians and cyclists.


  • #104
    mr potato head
    Registered Users Posts: 329 ✭✭mr potato head


    spacetweek wrote: »
    What??
    It's a junction right in the middle of residential areas. It needs to cater for traffic increase (with the extra lanes) but also walking and cycling. Freeflows impede pedestrians and cyclists.

    Yeah and I think the proposed "upgrade" for the N3 to three lanes will also do nothing to improve the situation, it will only reduce air quality in the area and have a negative long term impact on Blanchardstown village


  • #105
    The Dark Knight
    Registered Users Posts: 340 ✭✭The Dark Knight


    spacetweek wrote: »
    What??
    It's a junction right in the middle of residential areas. It needs to cater for traffic increase (with the extra lanes) but also walking and cycling. Freeflows impede pedestrians and cyclists.

    Not necessarily. You can have partial freeflow, with pedestrian crossings. Just look at the flow from the Blanchardstown road south onto the N3 inbound.


  • #106
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,776 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    mr potato head wrote: »
    Yeah and I think the proposed "upgrade" for the N3 to three lanes will also do nothing to improve the situation, it will only reduce air quality in the area and have a negative long term impact on Blanchardstown village

    As we head towards the demise of new combustion engined vehicles at the end of the decade, and probably sooner the way manufacturers are going, air quality affected by road traffic will become less and less an issue.


  • #107
    daymobrew
    Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    The Dark Knight wrote: »
    Not necessarily. You can have partial freeflow, with pedestrian crossings. Just look at the flow from the Blanchardstown road south onto the N3 inbound.
    Such things can be horrible for pedestrians - look at https://goo.gl/maps/oYeXVery4f8eojAF9 - 4 pedestrian crossing lights to go from left to right! That probably takes ages.


  • #108
    The Dark Knight
    Registered Users Posts: 340 ✭✭The Dark Knight


    daymobrew wrote: »
    Such things can be horrible for pedestrians - look at https://goo.gl/maps/oYeXVery4f8eojAF9 - 4 pedestrian crossing lights to go from left to right! That probably takes ages.

    And wasting millions of euros in upgrading a junction that will probably need to be upgraded again in 20 years time is horrible for tax payers.


  • #109
    daymobrew
    Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    As we head towards the demise of new combustion engined vehicles at the end of the decade, and probably sooner the way manufacturers are going, air quality affected by road traffic will become less and less an issue.
    While electric cars eliminate exhaust pipe emissions (or rather move emissions to the generating plant), tyre and brake pad emissions remain and are apparently really bad: https://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/motors/2020/0918/1166000-tyre-pollution-up-to-1-000-times-worse-than-engines-study-finds/


  • #110
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,504 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    That study, or probably just the reporting of it, falls over immediately on astoundingly basic maths problems.

    The headline of 5.8g a kilometre of tyre particulate would indicate that a set of tyres that does 20,000k will have lost 116 kilos of material over that time, 29kg a tyre

    My cars tyres weigh about 9kg each. One tyre cannot possibly emit 29kg of tyre particulate in its lifetime - it has probably lost in the range of a few hundred grams of weight by the time it reaches end of life, considering much of the weight is the steel internal structure.

    If they mean 5.8g including all forms of particulate - brakes (only a few hundred grams of brake pad to wear down over tens of thousands of km), road surface wear etc - I'd still think its massively overstated.


  • #111
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    They probably meant milligrams. Wouldn't be unusual for journos to be maths illiterate.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Caranica
    Registered Users Posts: 9,998 ✭✭✭Caranica


    Going back to the actual subject of the thread, it's now June and there's no sign of the actual works beginning, electronic signs say May? They really haven't told those of us living on/just off the road what to expect in terms of disruption.


  • #113
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,776 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    The works have begun.


  • #114
    Phil.x
    Registered Users Posts: 1,722 ✭✭✭Phil.x


    It's a dreadful junction and hopefully these works will make a great improvement.


  • #115
    daymobrew
    Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    L1011 wrote: »
    That study, or probably just the reporting of it, falls over immediately on astoundingly basic maths problems.
    You're right. I didn't think about tyre lifetime and the incorrect claims.

    Pollution aside, electric cars do not reduce congestion so there will still be long delays at the junction and, as it will be a long time before all cars are electric, there will still be a lot of pollution in the area.


  • #116
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    There's no way to treat a busy junction like this in such a way that everyone's happy.
    If you expand it to allow for more traffic, it flows better which at least reduces backed-up traffic, which is better for people who live locally.
    But this almost always makes harder to get through for non-motorists.

    In some locations, the above logic wins out, in others, expanding the road brings too many downsides so the area remains congested.


  • #117
    daymobrew
    Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    spacetweek wrote: »
    There's no way to treat a busy junction like this in such a way that everyone's happy.
    If you expand it to allow for more traffic, it flows better which at least reduces backed-up traffic, which is better for people who live locally.
    One thing known around the world is: "If you build extra road capacity, extra traffic will arrive to fill it."


  • #118
    Caranica
    Registered Users Posts: 9,998 ✭✭✭Caranica


    What I'm most annoyed with is that there was only one public consultation. They changed the plans after that but never circulated them to residents and didn't send any communication re works starting and impact on us. Still no closer to understanding the direct impact of two bridges


  • #119
    raheny red
    Registered Users Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭raheny red


    IMG_20210823_131533.jpg
    IMG_20210823_131440.jpg

    The last man standing really is gonna be swallowed up! The new structure will be right on top of them. The roundabout has been removed and replaced by plastic barriers.



  • #120
    raheny red
    Registered Users Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭raheny red


    https://twitter.com/Fingalcoco/status/1481189228272881667?t=E_zsaRkcAFLFHAAkbRYeGg&s=19



  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Phil.x
    Registered Users Posts: 1,722 ✭✭✭Phil.x


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117794404#Comment_117794404

    Was there an offer to purchase the house?



Advertisement