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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

M11/N11 - M50 (J4) to Coyne's Cross (J14) [options published]

1171820222325

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,473 ✭✭✭vickers209


    looking at the blue route i notice these houses inside the boundary line at garden village newtown junction 12 will these have to be cpo/delmolished if this route is selected?




  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Unlikely I would have thought - the blue corridor is 300m wide but they are not going to use all of it. If they go blue the main road is likely to veer away from those houses somewhere south of them, and the existing road would be quieter serving more local traffic.

    As far as those houses go I suspect impact might be greater from red route as existing road may be widened towards them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Given the uselessness of this new site, I'm only seeing your reply now. Any idea if effected landowners will find out today by post before it goes live?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Not sure to be honest, but I don't think so. I think this stage "Publication of Preferred Route" is still just indicative of what they're planning, and there is further consultation etc before notifying specific landowners. Then they design the actual works and after that they start to talk to individuals directly affected.

    Having said that if they go with red landowners already have a pretty good idea of whether or not they will be affected because that corridor has already been drawn pretty specifically. The blue remains a 300m wide option.

    My thinking is they will go with the combination of red and purple - i.e the tunnel through the glen. Although when I first saw it mooted I thought it was a bananas idea, but in terms of getting the project over the line it probably makes the most sense. It avoids a fight over the SAC which is their biggest hurdle, and it would appear to be the only choice Eamonn Ryan can spin favourably. As Minister for Transport, presumably he has had an input.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Yeah, I think you're probably right. The boundary detail of the red would lead me to think they've done a lot of work on this end already.

    How long does it usually take for design, minimum 6-12 months I presume.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Again no idea, but I guess they'd give themselves 12 months. They could probably do it much quicker, because as you say it looks like they have done a lot of the work already given the detail of the red corridor.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Hopefully it goes as favourable as possible for you later, just a waiting game now.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Oh, good bad or as expected. I better check in with my parents.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Bad but as expected. Just says my property is located within the preferred route corridor which means that they are definitely going for red. They may also go for tunnel too.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Yeah, parents got letters too, doesn't give detail of how much it will encroach into their property, interactive map is still showing the previous options.

    Only time will tell now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    So first impressions, as suspected lots of junction and private access closures. Majority of engineering works appear to be around jn7. No 3rd lane, with majority of route being 2 lane mainline. Parallel link roads a big focus between jn8 and jn5.

    After the initial excitement about going for big outside the box solutions it appears they've gone for the tried and tested route of trying not to annoy people and dare I say it, another fudge. Although maybe thats a bit harsh, but I'll study it in more detail later.



    https://n11m11-j4toj14-pc3-preferred-option.virtual-engage.com/

    Post edited by prunudo on


  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    That's my first impressions too. Another fudge.

    Disappointed they didn't go for the cyan route and try and solve the problems once and for all, future proofing the M11 and using existing N11 to create a brilliant local road network that would serve local traffic/public transport/cyclists and pedestrians excellently, as well as opening up a large amount of commuter belt land to expand existing towns and deliver for future housing needs.

    Very short sighted.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,900 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    There is an aux lane + additional lane proposed on the existing M11 but overall this is basically the cheapest option they have chosen which won't resolve anything and we'll need to revisit a few years after.

    Will Ireland ever learn that it is best to do things properly the first time? This is just penny pinching.

    They choose the cheapest option now only to have us spend far more in the future refixing it.

    It's depressing really.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Indeed. What is so depressing is that in the project brief and road safety reports they repeatedly attribute the cause of the problems they are trying to solve to the fact that the road has been developed piecemeal over time. And they repeat it today. For example in the "Active travel component document":

    However, the development of the present N11 along much of the original trunk road has resulted in a marked absence of alternative routes to satisfactorily cater for pedestrians and cyclists

    Very odd!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Another thing that worries me is the talk of closing jn8 and diverting all the traffic onto the new parallel link road. A lot of tourist traffic uses that junction, would hate to see short sighted planning causing excess traffic on these so called solutions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Any offline road here was never realistic, they were only included to go through the motions and say they looked at everything. Once offline aroundKilmac was ruled out, it didn'tmake sense to spend a fortune further south while the northern end remained a bottleneck. It would take years of planning and even if approved, probably wouldn't get built due to being at odds with government policy and/or cost reasons.

    The problem of over capacity on approach to Dublin will still exist and adding capacity further south is only going to exasperate that problem. Where this proposal is disappointing is the lack of consideration for alternative methods of transport, particularly the lack of bus lanes at the northern end where additional lanes are to be provided.

    Some of the junction proposals look like they could be better. I thought a roundabout setup like M4 J6 would have been a better option at J5, should fit and higher capacity. I don't understand why it isn't proposed to upgrade J8 to a full dumbbell which looks relatively easy to achieve. Going to this level of work but leaving J9 as is stupid. They should look at building a new junction slightly further north and a new access road to Greystones from it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,483 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    There is no "once and for all" solution, at least not in terms of road building, unless it is grade separated bus and active travel lanes, and park and rides. Both which kicked down the road in this update from my reading.

    Even the "future network" bit on the active travel they have a big gap in the most direct active travel route from Kilmac to Kilcroney - there's the proposed greenway towards Bray, but for commuting purposes, most direct route is better, so Kilmac - Kilcroney online on the same line as the n11- then link up with the one they highlight (at least northbound).

    Post edited by Macy0161 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    I'm happy to see they've mostly gone with my suggestions 😎

    essentially tidying up the mainline, removing extraneous junctions, doing what they can to get local and non-motor traffic off the dualler and putting in bus lanes (actually having looked at the details,. they're not committing to this but it's being "investigated")

    I can live with that - anything else would have involved throwing vast sums of money at car-based commuting.

    I had expected to see more about parallel road infrastructure further south (which would also provide offline cycling routes). Maybe this will be dealt with in the next phase but it looks like it still won't be possible to go from (say) Kilpedder to Kilmac without using the N11 through the Glen, or from Kilpedder to Newtown to Ashford without taking to the boreens. This would seem to preclude redesignating the road to motorway.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,215 ✭✭✭BigMoose


    Presumably the lack of shoulder on the main line where the parallel roads are right next to it between jn6-7 and 7-8 would preclude it ever being a motorway? Crashes north in the morning on these sections would make a bigger mess than now - although I guess the idea is there wont be as many with less crappy junctions. Also the roundabout at jn7 is already a bit of a disaster and they're adding more traffic to it? Slightly longer slip off the mainline south for traffic to queue I guess.

    There's a bunch of crappy access junctions that they seem to have kicked the can for too until "phase 3" whenever that is?

    While this looks like a really short term cheap option, what is really disappointing is there's no joined up thinking/planning around any alternative. If there's no usable alternative (and by that I mean better than buses that sit in the traffic), folk will drive and will vote accordingly when they spend half their life stuck on the N11 or standing out at wet miserable bus stops. I've lived in Wicklow for little under 15 years and never used the train until recently as it's effectively useless for commuting if you're likely to have overrunning work commitments or day trips as the timetable is so bad, but took a staycation in Dublin so decided to take the family on the train to save parking and was impressed at how easy and busy the journey was, even on a bank holiday. Clearly there's demand for a regular/usable train service from Wicklow and parts of a usable asset already there. But absolutely no desire from a so call green transport minister that I can see to properly invest in the rail network and get more folk out of cars into a train...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    they specifically said they weren't examining rail options as part of this project because Dart+ would contain proposals for the south-eastern line.

    A more frequent rail service to Wicklow Town is a no-brainer but it will probably be an hourly shuttle to Greystones with only the Wexford trains running through to the city.

    on the N11 plans, the cross sections would seem to preclude bus lanes where service roads are taking away the hard-shoulders. If the idea is for buses to use the service roads it seems likely they'll just get caught in traffic on those instead (i.e. if the service roads are quieter than the mainline, then people will just use them as rat runs to save themselves 30 seconds and the traffic will balance out with the service roads effectively become extra N11 lanes).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,963 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    My prediction is this won't happen.


    The loss of movements at the Bray north and south junction will cause such a ruckus that they'll be designed back in, or the whole thing canned.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,215 ✭✭✭BigMoose



    Last I looked at the DART+ plans though there was nothing mentioned for south of Greystones which is no help for easing traffic through GOTD or attempting to invest in greener transport... I agree a frequent rail service is a no brainer if they are in any way serious about public transport, but see no evidence they really are. If it is a shuttle to Greystones or takes up a Dart slot an hour further into town, either would be a massive improvement on the joke it currently is.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    the plans for Greystones include an extra south facing platform, which could be used for a Wicklow shuttle. They're also going to end up with a bunch of battery powered trains that could be used for that shuttle.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    I dont understand the proposal for the southbound merge to be closed at J5, I dont see the benefit to it particularly given they are suggesting leaving far worse merges as they are further south. Like I said above, I think an alternative junction design at J5 should be considered and also incorporating bus priority measures. Creating a higher capacity junction at J5 could be used to justify closing J6, although I'm sure there would still be some opposition. It could be a case of proposing something basic now, then improving the design at the next stage as a way of pacifying people. Lots of areas have been left vague, this draws out the complaints which can then be addressed (or the reasonable ones addressed at least).

    In any case, while I'm sure there will be plenty of moaning, I don't see the issues being that big that the whole thing gets canned. The existing issues are that big that something has to be done and I'm sure everyone would agree with that. Leaving everything as is is just not an option.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Yeah, there a few oddities in the plan. Essentially means anyone from Shankill or Bray North will have to either join n11 southbound at Loughlinstown roundabout or go on local roads and join at jn7.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu



    I can only assume they have traffic count figures that show there is a fairly small amount of traffic genuinely heading south on the N11 from Bray, and that most of the traffic joining from the 3 junctions is local people avoiding going through the town. So this traffic will shift to the new service roads.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    True, just find it odd they're diverting traffic back through Skankill. Whatever about closing one junction, closing both jn5 and 6 seems odd. I'm all for closing the likes of Herbert rd etc. and connecting these into the parallel road system.

    Of course these are all only proposals so time will tell. Anyone got any feelers for current public opinion further north. I get the impression once Delgany village routes (and a lesser extent of Downshill) were abandoned the outrage about any works around this this end has dissipated. Social media certainly doesn't seem to be in meltdown like before. Feels like most people are happy as the inconvenience 'only' effects those along the current route.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    what do you mean "back through Shankill"? I'd imagine you'll be better off using the service roads than going through Shankill village if heading south, even from Little Bray.

    There are some mutterings on the Greystones Open Forum about the closure of J10, though I don't really know why. It will make it slightly longer to get onto the N11 from Delgany but it'll massively reduce the amount of rat-running traffic in the village.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Here at Kilquade, I've got to assume that they'll continue that orange service road ("Kilpedder West") south to connect to the roundabout at Garden village, as it will provide access to the house in the middle (marked with an 'i') and also an offline connection between Newtown/Kilpedder/Greystones which is a missing link in the current plans.





  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Certainly looks like they will have the land take available. I believe there will also be a link rd through the garden village sandpit connecting to the Kilcoole rd, although this will be part of the developments here, not to do with the n11 project.

    Agree with you regarding the jn10 changes, can't see it having that much issue and will definitely stop the rat running.

    You could be right about Shankill, just thought you'd be putting a lot of the residents from the south of the village back through the village to get to Loughlinstown. But as you say, the traffic counters probably showed they were in the minority.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Agree with you regarding the jn10 changes, can't see it having that much issue and will definitely stop the rat running.

    It will probably also bring pressure to build the Greystones Northern Access Road (connecting to J9) which I'm not crazy about but is probably inevitable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Is there an actual route identified for such a road? I couldn't find anything online.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Locally rumoured to run from Redford cemetery towards the old Glen of the Downs golf course and then link up with jn9, Glenview hotel. But as you say there doesn't appear to be anything concrete on line or on maps.

    Regarding the actual need for road, and i know ot, but difficult questions will have to be asked about what people want. A new road isn't ideal but upgrading Windgates rd isn't without issue either as there are space constraints should they want to add bus and cycling infrastructure.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    the start of the NAR is on the old development plan (from 2014). It's essentially where the new Cairn development is going at Redford, I think the first bit of it will be built by Cairn, to be extended at some point in the future towards Ballydonagh Road to the north of Kindlestown Woods. That Cairn development hasn't been submitted to planning yet - there's a placeholder for it here: https://www.cairnhomes.com/new-homes/coolagad/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Found it on a map here;

    Perhaps it is outside the scope of the Greystones-Delgany and Kilcoole Local Area Plan but the intention really should be to extend it to the N11. No similar map appears in the Draft Wicklow County Development Plan 2021-2027. Ideally a new junction 9 would be created along with the western section of the new access road. J9 is substandard and adding some J10 traffic to it is not going to do it any favours.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    There are 2 houses which would block continuing the road you're referring to.

    Doesn't seem worth it to demolish 2 houses to provide an access road to a third!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    it would provide an offline route from Newtown to Kilpedder and Greystones, currently that traffic uses the N11. Connecting the house in the middle (which they have to do anyway to close their private access onto the N11) would be a bonus, but there's probably another way of doing it without demolishing any houses. e.g.




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Not sure what route it will take, and could even be on the west side of the road, but given they have added a lot of 'will be addressed at design stage' comments I reckon there will be one or two surprises that will make it to the final plan.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    yeah, west side of the road coming out near Jocks pub would also work.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Especially with them already proposing a link road to the organic farm and the data centre would have to have provision for internal roads within the development.

    But going back to your previous map, it could also make sense to contuine the new link road from Farrenkelly rd- Kilquade rd further south and through the farmland to link with Garden Village and Ballyronan rd. Ironically, this is the way the n11 should have gone in the late 70s, early 80s rather than dividing Kilpedder in half.

    Same goes for Kilmac, if they had of gone behind the garage (east side) in the 90s it wouldn't be as contentious as it is today.

    So alas, while there are some good elements in the latest plan, I don't believe we won't be back here in 10 or 15 years looking for the latest solution to Wicklow coco's/abp endless granting of residential planning applications with no care for proper public transport infrastructure.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    I believe there are already plans for a connection from GV to the Newtown-Kilcoole Rd. partly to provide a route from the industrial estate in Kilcoole to the N11 without going through one or other of the village centres.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    This scheme brings into focus the fact that we really need to be thinking holistically about this type of thing, i.e. "how can we improve all transport options for passing between Dublin and Wicklow" instead of "how do we improve the N11 road." What we really need is to improve the road for cars, add missing side roads for cyclists and pedestrians, add bus lanes and provide more frequent buses, and double track and electrify the coastal rail line. Should all be one project ideally, but that's not this world.

    As for the road improvements themselves, here are my observations:

    J4-J5 to be widened from 6 to 8 lanes by adding auxiliary lanes. If the M50 is widened to 6 lanes in future, this might need to be 10. Six of those would be the M50 lanes and 4 the N11 ones. Unusal layout in that the mainline would go from 4 N11 lanes to 6 M50 ones.

    Was initially disappointed that the Bray bypass will not be widened to 6 lanes mainline, but there isn't room along most of it and the new service roads will be functionally part of the road. Broadly happy with these new service roads as a solution. Glad that Herbert Road will no longer have its incredibly dangerous direct access to the mainline.

    The new J5 *might* work. The plan is have the N11 with north-facing ramps at J5, and south-facing at J6.

    Some thought should go into how the Luas will get through the new J5 as it will probably run along the west side of the M11 before crossing it at that junction to reach central Bray.

    That Luas line also envisaged a big P&R at Fassroe. But the plan now is to close that junction so NB car traffic would need to exit at Bray South and come up the new side roads to get to Fassroe. So it's no longer a great location for that P&R.

    No redesignation to motorway for J6 Fassaroe-J7 Bray South (and beyond). The N11 will no longer have stopping lanes, but that should not preclude it.

    Surprised and pleased with the new plan for J7 Bray South. Shows imagination.

    Happy with the new side roads and closures for the busy J8-J9, though some are vaguely defined as Phase 3.

    There is land for a new road south of J8 near Kilmurray west of the N11 connecting a potential new side road to the cottages, but no road is marked on the land so not sure if this has been finalised yet.

    Pity there will not be protected side routes for cyclists/pedestrians provided through Glen of the Downs. Happy with it otherwise, though they really should build a tunnel and narrow the surface dual carriageway.

    Happy with the changes to be made north and south of Kilpeddar, and complete closure of J10. These changes should have been made when new J11 was opened in 2008, but better late than never.

    Rap on the knuckles for no improvement to J12 SB offramp. This incredibly dangerous diverge nearly killed me many years ago. Notes say there may be further changes north of that in Phase 3, so fingers crossed.

    No improvement at all will be made to the junction layout at J13 at NTMK. No new side road between J13 and J14. Bus stop on the mainline just north of J14 to be retained. This means redesignation of J12-14 as motorway, which would have been very easy, is off the table. All very poor.


    So broadly speaking, it seems the northern end of the scheme will greatly improve safety and, through the provision of new side roads, capacity. No change will be made to the Glen which is wise. They could have done better with the Newtownmountkennedy bypass. We'll see how the Green Minister for Transport views this scheme soon enough.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,483 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    The campaigns are already up and running to save junctions/ direct access to the N11... There's an online petition to "Save Delgany Village Access to N11" by keeping Delgany/ Drummin exits.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    yeah and various local politicians have rolled in behind it.

    A lot of people pushing the petition seem to have missed the fact that there will be a new direct flyover between Delgany/Drummin and Willow Grove and are saying Delganians will have go around by Greystones to get to the N11. In reality the extra time to use J11 via Willow Grove will be around 2 minutes max.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    A lot of those campaigning to "Save Delgany Village Access to N11" are the same short sighted muppets who campaigned for the red route in a knee jerk nimby panic over a motorway through the gold course.

    It was as clear as day that if the red route was chosen Junction 10 would be closed - bit late to be whingeing about it now.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I suspect 2 mins is true off peak. I'd say it will be considerably more than 2 minutes extra in rush hour, particularly in the evening with traffic coming off N11 at J11.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    maybe, at rush hour all bets are off. You want to drive to work, you're going to get stuck in traffic at numerous points along the route.

    at the end of the day, my main concern was that they not widen the road. After that, I don't really care whether they close J10 or not.

    Looking again at the plans for J10, the underpass at Barry's Bridge basically becomes a dead end, or extended driveway for the one house on that side of the road. It would be better if they left the connection to Old-Downs Road in place (& maybe make the road 2-way again)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,104 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Also curious to see how they plan to deal with this little cul-de-sac access to 2 houses and a farmyard on the west of of the Glen - it's not straightforward to connect it to J9.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement