Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1383940414244»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,361 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    They should scrap this "preliminary" stuff and just go with the real scheme involving the tunneling.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,725 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    I'd say the much more likely solution is for the new R762 extension to be routed alongside the N11 (this avoiding/minimizing any impact on the houses) before swinging east to connect to the roundabout. That would be much more achievable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,725 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    I assume you are talking about the on ramp to be converted to a cycle lane shown on drawings 104 & 105? It is only one way because to use it in the other direction, you'd have to cycle down the N11 against the traffic flow, which shouldn't be encouraged.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5 MCW2026


    TBH I reckon there would be more adverse impact with that route as it would inevitably eat into a chunk of the existing back gardens rather than just widening the existing road in front of the houses.

    Either way whatever the best route might be, extending the R762 to that roundabout remains the most obvious and most achievable solution to the problems.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,584 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    It's not an on-ramp, it's currently one-way from the N11 up the hill to Kilpedder and is mostly used by people coming from Delgany who have to take a sharp turn from the actual on-ramp, which is obviously quite dangerous for cars as they have to slow down to make a hairpin turn. However I don't see the issue with leaving the option for cyclists to turn up the hill onto a 2-way cycle lane.

    image.png

    Put your money where yer mouth is... Subscribe and Save Boards!

    https://subscriptions.boards.ie/



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5 MCW2026


    This very true.

    The problem with this sort of stuff is it is only those who are against changes that make themselves heard.

    The council will propose road changes, new routes etc in the full knowledge that it will inconvenience a small amount of people, but the logic is that the changes are worthwhile as they will benefit a far higher number of people. For the greater good etc.

    Then the plans are made available for public consultation and those who think it is a bad idea starting shouting and lobbying and raising hell about it. Their voices are disproportionately loud, but because they're the only ones shouting, they're the only ones that the elected officials hear.

    And thus plans get shelved and everybody goes back to tut tutting about the state of the roads and the traffic. A decent public representative worth the office would take the courageous decision to ignore the noise and do the right thing.

    Surely it's worth their while to take a minute and reflect on what is worth more votes in Wicklow?

    Saying "I sorted out the **** show that is the N11" or saying "I made sure nothing changed to sort out the **** show that is the N11"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Macy0161


    We can blame the politicians all we want, but ultimately it's the electorate that won't reward long term thinking. "Someone should think long term, but I'm voting for the local guy".

    OT, but…. I think the proportionality of our system is great, but you can see the merits of a list system alongside it to actually give a few politicians not completely tied to keeping a constituency happy and able to take a longer view.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,517 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    We have the fairest, most representative electoral system in the world. It shouldn’t be a surprise that this shifts the policy balance toward local issues, because that’s what most people care about, not ideologies.

    There’s a very true point above, though: politicians only hear from people who have a problem with some new thing. Satisfied voters are silent, and sometimes that causes representatives to overlook them and only listen to the moaners.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,044 ✭✭✭✭josip


    And that proportional representation system is well suited to local elections to deal with local issues.

    Local issues should not have any bearing on the running of the country. Do we want the country to be run by a cabinet of Healy Raes?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,517 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Nope. Our system does what elections are supposed to do: accurately reflect the desires of the electorate. It shouldn’t be a surprise that a generally well-educated populace in a country where one is free to express ones opinion returns a wide variety of politicians - the system that should feel crazy is FPTP, where a nation lurches between two extremes based on how a vanishingly small share of voters decided to cast their ballot - look at the US, where Priority#1 for every incoming administration is to dismantle every policy put in place by its predecessor.

    Local issues are the running of the country, because every national issue becomes a local issue at some point. And you’ve clearly fallen for the Healy-Rae method of claiming credit for anything that touches their constituency if you think they have that much effect on national policy.

    TDs are sent to the Dáil to represent the people who voted for them: their party affiliation is only something that goes into the voter’s choice, but our multi-seat and transferrable vote system allows us to differentiate between voting for a party, and voting for a particular candidate of that party. As a result we really do not have “safe seats” here, where the party can stand any dope they want for election knowing that voters will never vote against the party. Anyone who can keep their seat here for a long time has done it by convincing voters that they’re actually doing a good job (whether they are or not is another matter).

    A few parish-pump politicians is a price worth paying compared to what people in other countries get: look east or west from here and you see countries where parties get landslide seat counts from securing a minority of the cast votes. Sounds great if you happen to like whoever is currently in power without an actual mandate, but it’s not democracy, and it polarises people’s politics to the point where those parties can get voters to permit any kind of abuse of power simply by painting it as something the other side would hate.

    Personally, I’d rather have money “wasted” on potholes being filled and schools being refurbished ahead of schedule as part of a supply-and-confidence deal from a mouthy independent than have the country descend into a fascist theocracy because one of the only two parties that can ever win power has been taken over by extremists.

    If we have a problem it’s that members of the public who would support major works do not take the time to voice that support. As a result, the people making the decisions can start to think that the shouty NIMBYs are actually representative of the whole population. The worst example of this was the “M28” astroturfing operation: almost everyone in Cork wanted this road built, yet a large number of elected officials aligned with the minority who were against it, because that’s the only narrative they ever heard.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,044 ✭✭✭✭josip


    If the majority of our politicians are of the caliber you claim they are, then they can see beyond the vocal minority and see what the majority of their reasonable electorate want.

    In which case I would conclude that the majority of people in north Wicklow do not want any change to the current road layout and the relevant politicians, including our Tánaiste, are aware of that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Macy0161


    It's not single transferable vote v FPTP or College. We could have a combination of STV and List, which would give at least some politicians not tied to the local potholes, but retain proportionality. STV isn't perfect either, with proportionality dependent on the seats in a constituency.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,517 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Why would that change anything? List candidates would be regional on paper only, with their own hinterland of support that gets them the seat. If there’s any “problem” with our system it is that it very closely reflects the wishes of the electorate.. Every complaint I’ve ever seen about our electoral system boils down to “I don’t like the choices that voters make”, and tries to limit the amount of say that voters have in the choice of TDs, for instance by imposing party-selected lists (nullifying the power of ranked-choice voting), or shrinking constituencies (nullifying the power of the transferrable vote to benefit larger parties).

    Dragging this back to the actual topic, the changes to this road are not only the business of people in North Wicklow, but also anyone who needs to bring a vehicle into Dublin from the south. It is both a local and national issue, and the desires of both of those sides are in conflict, so something has to give. If this was China, the local people would be served with eviction notices, paid a nominal compensation and the road would be widened. Some people here would support that kind of action here, but only because they’re not thinking ahead: once you let the government steamroller citizen’s rights like this, they’ll do it again, until it destroys something you might care about, or that might affect your family.

    There’s a balance needed between capitulating to any whiny NIMBY at one end and paralysing the country as a result, and having no personal rights on the other. We’re nowhere close to either pole, despite what the shouty media might say.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 843 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    We actually don't have the fairest, most representative electoral system in the world. Our version is quite good and gives a reasonably good match between representatives compared to votes than many systems but it can skew in favour of larger parties, provided they run more candidates. True list systems used in a number of countries provide better results on representation depending on where you put the threshold cut-off and how big your constituencies are.

    Ireland is hamstrung by having poor local government and also having national representatives who sometimes act as enhanced local representatives only looking after their own patch as opposed to governing or at least working for the national interest.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,517 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    I disagree about lists, as they deny the electorate the ability to choose between candidates within the list, and they make it impossible for the electorate to eject a party leader, but that disagreement doesn't belong here.

    N11...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 381 ✭✭Reuben1210


    Agree for the most part, but Ireland would probably benefit from a minimum % threshold for a party to enter parliament that many European countries use. This would force organisation and more national policies and reduce the one-off local 'kings' and their fiefdoms like Healy Raes or Michael Lowry etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,517 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    You may not like those guys, but voters in their constituencies do, and they regularly top the poll. Talk of national vote percentages and parties is just putting a pointless barrier in place, and one that would permanently remove smaller parties from the Dáil, and the likes of Lowry and Healy-Rae and all the other independents would just form a paper party to reach that national quota and would end up in an even stronger position as kingmakers.

    Again you’re proposing comes down to the same gripe as always raised against our system: “I don’t like the candidates that other people vote for, so I want their votes to count less than mine”. Not accusing you of thinking this way, but it’s what any proposal of this kind will result in: some votes become less equal than others.

    The only change I’d be in favour of would be anything that increased turnout, up to and including mandatory voting. I’d also favour automatic registration when you change address: students get to vote where they are living, unless they explicitly choose to keep their registration at their parent’s address. Anyone who feels strongly about not voting can use that conviction to turn up and draw a big mickey on their ballot paper every couple of years - I’d have a bit more respect for their opinion if they even did that.

    Post edited by KrisW1001 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,363 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Did anyone make it to the presentation in the Glenview the other night?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,584 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    I had planned to go but something came up. I will make a submission though.

    Put your money where yer mouth is... Subscribe and Save Boards!

    https://subscriptions.boards.ie/



Advertisement
Advertisement