N7/N11 Newlands Cross & Arklow to Rathnew

spacetweek · 13-06-2009 02:11PM

mysterious wrote: »

So are we better off to make the 100,000 N7 traffic suffer for the sake of 10 cyclists a week that use that cycle lane. Lets get real here.

Give me some paitence for such bull****.

Whatever.

So we're all agreed then. They should be building a 4+4 bridge, and coning off the 4th lane until we have a 4th lane all the way out to Citywest. Right now though, a 4th lane should be added between Monastery Interchange and Newlands, which is dropped at the new overbridge.

That way, we get our upgraded junction, it would flow well down to the M50, and we can work on getting the 4th lane out to Citywest over the next few years.

Sounds like a plan.

Carawaystick · 14-06-2009 09:42PM

mysterious wrote: »

So are we better off to make the 100,000 N7 traffic suffer for the sake of 10 cyclists a week that use that cycle lane. Lets get real here.

If there wasn't a cycle lane, the cyclists would have to cycle in a driving lane.

L1011 · 14-06-2009 11:17PM

Carawaystick wrote: »

If there wasn't a cycle lane, the cyclists would have to cycle in a driving lane.

Theres a negligible number of them, and the presence of the cycle lane on the DC just encourages them to use it rather than far safer roads which exists parallel at that stage. Anyway, they'd end up in the bus lane not a main driving lane - something cyclists cope with quite well elsewhere in the city...

murphaph · 15-06-2009 01:07PM

there are so few pedestrians using that stretch of footpath that a combined cycle and pathway would be fine. A footpath needs to be provided anyway.

mysterious · 15-06-2009 08:23PM

murphaph wrote: »

there are so few pedestrians using that stretch of footpath that a combined cycle and pathway would be fine. A footpath needs to be provided anyway.

Which why there is no point:rolleyes: you make it sound like

I cant eat a sandwich without chicken in it.... this **** hurts my brain.

Logic will tell you that anyone who uses that pathway crosses over to the Fonthill road or towards Clondalkin. The Bowstring bridge allows them to cross over the DC freely.

So they should actully move pedestrians onto the Joels lane instead.

There is only reason that pathway/cycle lane is there is to make it look to pretty.....

Chris_533976 · 15-06-2009 08:58PM

Chicken sandwiches are nice though. A big piece of chicken breast, a small bit of salt and some barbecue sauce.

murphaph · 15-06-2009 09:05PM

mysterious wrote: »

Which why there is no point:rolleyes: you make it sound like

I cant eat a sandwich without chicken in it.... this **** hurts my brain.

It's not that complicated I assure you.

mysterious wrote: »

Logic will tell you that anyone who uses that pathway crosses over to the Fonthill road or towards Clondalkin. The Bowstring bridge allows them to cross over the DC freely.

That's just plain wrong. Some pedestrians access the businesses on the southern side of the N7 between the bowstring bridge and Newlands cross.

mysterious wrote: »

So they should actully move pedestrians onto the Joels lane instead.

See above-this would not allow pedestrians to access the businesses mentioned.

mysterious wrote: »

There is only reason that pathway/cycle lane is there is to make it look to pretty.....

No it's because it's a busy national road with a right of way for pedestrians to use. I suggest that the current segregated footpath and cycleway could be combined into a shared use type given the low volume of users whilst still allowing safe pedestrian access to the businesses on the south side of the N7 at this location.

The road here is not some bypass. It has been successively widened down the years and this needs to be borne in mind.

mysterious · 15-06-2009 09:14PM

Chris_533976 wrote: »

Chicken sandwiches are nice though. A big piece of chicken breast, a small bit of salt and some barbecue sauce.

I would have a chicken sandwich cylcing down that road, not a bother.

Sure its a thrill... Don't know why I would be cycling down that way.

mysterious · 15-06-2009 09:18PM

murphaph wrote: »

That's just plain wrong. Some pedestrians access the businesses on the southern side of the N7 between the bowstring bridge and Newlands cross.

So they all cycle to work:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:....

how many businesses are there. Seriously. And how many cycle to these businesses, 2?... They can easily put a link to an post and the buildings around there to the Luas interchage roundabout.

No it's because it's a busy national road with a right of way for pedestrians to use. I suggest that the current segregated footpath and cycleway could be combined into a shared use type given the low volume of users whilst still allowing safe pedestrian access to the businesses on the south side of the N7 at this location.

For someone who wanted to ban cyclists off the Athlone bypass, you want to keep cyclists on a road that is 4 times busier. rofl...

Murphaph your non points never surprise me.

The road here is not some bypass. It has been successively widened down the years and this needs to be borne in mind.

I never said it was, it's a busy Dc. that needs to be widened. cylists can use the other path on the other side of the road ffs.... there is hardly any development on the outbound lane. From an post to Newlands is bare land. BARE LAND.... Where would the cyclists be going.

BluntGuy · 15-06-2009 09:48PM

mysterious wrote: »

For someone who wanted to ban cyclists off the Athlone bypass, you want to keep cyclists on a road that is 4 times busier. rofl...

I think it's best not to point out that particular thread, since you were the person claiming... what was it again, 1000 tractors use that road every hour or something...

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

mysterious · 16-06-2009 04:22AM

BluntGuy wrote: »

I think it's best not to point out that particular thread, since you were the person claiming... what was it again, 1000 tractors use that road every hour or something...

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

I said probable.Not exact.

murphaph · 16-06-2009 01:01PM

mysterious wrote: »

So they all cycle to work:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:.....

Of course not. No need to be supersillious.

mysterious wrote: »

how many businesses are there. Seriously. And how many cycle to these businesses, 2?... They can easily put a link to an post and the buildings around there to the Luas interchage roundabout..

There's a side road from just after the old Renault Ireland building onto the DC there too. There are various businesses down that road and I regularly had to let traffic out from it onto the N7 so somebody must work down there. You don't live in the area do you Mysterious? I passed that stretch of road every day for a couple of years as I ued to live just off the N7 near the Kildare border. People do actually use that footpath to access the businesses on the road there.

mysterious wrote: »

For someone who wanted to ban cyclists off the Athlone bypass, you want to keep cyclists on a road that is 4 times busier. rofl....

Exactly. Athlone BYPASS. Built as a new offline bypass of the old route through Athlone with NO adjoining businesses so we should strive to PREVENT a Naas Road type situation developing along it (hence it should be declared MOTORWAY). The Naas Road is an ancient route and at this particualr point it is the original route-the trees in the central reservation at this point used to be the southern boundary along the road in fact, before it was widened in the 60s. The Naas Road was never protected from development and now that businesses stretch along it's southern boundary, pedestrian access must be maintained as the ancient right of way exists over this road. It would be practically impossible (and probably illegal from the business owners point of view) to ban pedestrians from using this road. If the road had no businesses along it I'd be all in favour of motorway restrictions (for example the Chapelizod Bypass).

mysterious wrote: »

Murphaph your non points never surprise me..

Whatever. Such childish drivel.

mysterious wrote: »

I never said it was, it's a busy Dc. that needs to be widened. cylists can use the other path on the other side of the road ffs.... there is hardly any development on the outbound lane. From an post to Newlands is bare land. BARE LAND.... Where would the cyclists be going.

They can't access the old Renault Ireland facility/Heitons and the other businesses up that side road I mentioned from ACROSS a dual carriageway now can they. You want to 'magic up' space for a link from the Luas to these businesses but reckon there isn't enough space for a footpath as things stand? You're confused in your thinking.

mysterious · 16-06-2009 05:56PM

murphaph wrote: »

There's a side road from just after the old Renault Ireland building onto the DC there too. There are various businesses down that road and I regularly had to let traffic out from it onto the N7 so somebody must work down there. You don't live in the area do you Mysterious? I passed that stretch of road every day for a couple of years as I ued to live just off the N7 near the Kildare border. People do actually use that footpath to access the businesses on the road there.

Did you have to write all this bull in such a large paragraph.

Look at this map, I really think your not familar with this road. From An post to Newlands lies NO DEVELOPMENT. NOTHING.

The businesses are on Joel's side citybound.
Your talking nonsense. It is not a neccesatiy to have a fanciful cycleway/pathway on this side of the road. It should be built offline to the DC.

<iframe width="640" height="340" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=53.314429,-6.385353&spn=0.004359,0.013733&z=16&output=embed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=53.314429,-6.385353&spn=0.004359,0.013733&z=16&source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>

This is the link, don't how to put it up here directly but here it shows that there are no businesses on this part of the N7

Exactly. Athlone BYPASS. Built as a new offline bypass of the old route through Athlone with NO adjoining businesses so we should strive to PREVENT a Naas Road type situation developing along it (hence it should be declared MOTORWAY). The Naas Road is an ancient route and at this particualr point it is the original route-the trees in the central reservation at this point used to be the southern boundary along the road in fact, before it was widened in the 60s. The Naas Road was never protected from development and now that businesses stretch along it's southern boundary, pedestrian access must be maintained as the ancient right of way exists over this road. It would be practically impossible (and probably illegal from the business owners point of view) to ban pedestrians from using this road. If the road had no businesses along it I'd be all in favour of motorway restrictions (for example the Chapelizod Bypass).

No one is asking for motorway restrictions, this is for safety and common sense. It is NOT NEEDED.

vel.

They can't access the old Renault Ireland facility/Heitons and the other businesses up that side road I mentioned from ACROSS a dual carriageway now can they. You want to 'magic up' space for a link from the Luas to these businesses but reckon there isn't enough space for a footpath as things stand? You're confused in your thinking.

Hmm guess you really haven't a clue.

Renault building is on the OTHER SIDE. if you understand this I may help you out further. Cyclists and pedestrian would be using joels lane to access the renualt building. There is no reason why they cannot use a safer direct pathway on the same side of the road.

Carawaystick · 16-06-2009 08:27PM

mysterious, explain the route you would make a cyclist take to get from the LongMile road to Rathcoole?
Also from the Luas car park to Roadstone?

JTfan · 16-06-2009 08:45PM

:cool:Sorry

murphaph · 17-06-2009 01:02PM

mysterious wrote: »

Did you have to write all this bull in such a large paragraph.

Look at this map, I really think your not familar with this road. From An post to Newlands lies NO DEVELOPMENT. NOTHING.

The businesses are on Joel's side citybound.
Your talking nonsense. It is not a neccesatiy to have a fanciful cycleway/pathway on this side of the road. It should be built offline to the DC.

I said a combined footpath and cycleway is all that's needed along here, not a fanciful one. 'The bare minimum' if that makes it easier for you.

mysterious wrote: »

This is the link, don't how to put it up here directly but here it shows that there are no businesses on this part of the N7

But there are business immediately east of this stretch and the Belgard Road (main feeder road into Tallaght from this area) lies immediately west. How would you route cyclists from Tallaght to say An Post?

mysterious wrote: »

No one is asking for motorway restrictions, this is for safety and common sense. It is NOT NEEDED.

For safety you should provide a footpath and combined cycleway here other wise pedestrians and cyclists will LEGALLY walk in lane 1 of your proposed road.

mysterious wrote: »

Hmm guess you really haven't a clue.

Oh really....

mysterious wrote: »

Renault building is on the OTHER SIDE.

Wrong. I said OLD RENAULT IRELAND FACILITY-this is NOW the An Post building (previously SDS building). So I guess it's you who hasn't a clue lol. I'm born and bred in the area and know it all very well.

mysterious wrote: »

if you understand this I may help you out further. Cyclists and pedestrian would be using joels lane to access the renualt building.
Irrelevant as you are talking about a Renault DEALERSHIP-nothing to do with the old Renault Ireland building, which is now An Post.

Basically mysterious it seems to have escaped you that this is a bloody urban area and in urban areas (apart from motorways) it is standard practice to provide footpaths and where possible cycle paths. The fact that there is no development between An Post (Heitons access road actually) and the Belgard Road is EVEN MORE reason to take some of that undeveloped land and BUILD A FOOTPATH on it when the road is widened.

mysterious · 17-06-2009 05:37PM

You still don't get it......

Why do I nearly always end up correcting you on these infrastructure points.

Redcow
Turnpike
the actual Clondalkin merge(pre Redcow upgraded)
And again recently on another thread about the N25 just to name a few.

Now here.........

I will draw a map of what is the correct procedere here, and actually make all your points negible............ every single one.
P.S if you can name someone who actually cycles from Tallaght to An Post, I'd be very very surprised. This is not an an urbanised area. It's suburban that's the diffrerence. For someone who was reared in this region you should know. The N7 is all industrial along this road all the way to Rathcoole. Infact as a cyclist's myself this region is not suited for cyclists I can assure you. its predominentely car traffic.

I will show my plans, and it will involve your route, but at present you always see short sightness and of such.

murphaph · 17-06-2009 06:36PM

Good man mysterious. You go and draw your maps. You don't even know what buildings we're talking about.

Carawaystick · 17-06-2009 06:37PM

mysterious wrote: »

You still don't get it......

who are you referring to?

mysterious wrote: »

Infact as a cyclist's myself this region is not suited for cyclists I can assure you. its predominentely car traffic.

You could say every road in the country is predominately car traffic. What region do you mean?

murphaph · 17-06-2009 06:43PM

The guy doesn't even realise that suburban is a subset of urban, not the opposite of it. Urban just means built up area it doesn't mean "city centre". Bray has an URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL so is Bray now more URBAN than Clondalkin/Tallaght?

Mysterious also completely forgets that undeveloped land in Dublin generally doesn't stay undeveloped for long anyway.

mysterious · 17-06-2009 07:22PM

Carawaystick wrote: »

who are you referring to?

You could say every road in the country is predominately car traffic. What region do you mean?

Didn't say every road, I said region. South West Dublin, is a network of wide grid roads between the N7 and Tallaght, suited for long distance commuting. It's predominatley for busniness parks and factories. Don't see his point.

People are not going to cycle on these industrial roads to commute morning and night when a car seems more logical. It's not like like the Belgard road suffers from car congestion. Car congestion would be the only reason some people might temper to become a cyclists.

Murphaph is tring to negate this argument, like many cyclists would be travelling to work in these suburban industrial parks from the city by bike via the Naas road.

That is laughable.

Even if they were he better start doing a survey because I'd be interested to see it.

Cyclists can use the Joels side where there is a path and road separated fromt The N7.....

L1011 · 17-06-2009 08:48PM

murphaph wrote: »

The guy doesn't even realise that suburban is a subset of urban, not the opposite of it. Urban just means built up area it doesn't mean "city centre". Bray has an URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL so is Bray now more URBAN than Clondalkin/Tallaght?

Mysterious also completely forgets that undeveloped land in Dublin generally doesn't stay undeveloped for long anyway.

Town Council since 1999

murphaph · 17-06-2009 11:22PM

mysterious wrote: »

It's not like like the Belgard road suffers from car congestion

hahaha....that is all.

mysterious · 17-06-2009 11:28PM

[PHP][/PHP]

murphaph wrote: »

hahaha....that is all.

So tell me how bad it is, on the BELGARD road from Tallaght to the N7? Not Newlands cross now.

BELGARD road. Tell me where the traffic problem is on this strectch, given the fact that the Outer ring road is NOW OPEN from Tallaght to Citywest..

Tell me who cycles to tallaght via the Belgard to Redcow......

You wont find any, Cus its utter bull****.

mysterious · 18-06-2009 12:52AM

So here is a pic of a proper layout

That allows

National road
Local traffic
Auxillary
Pedestrians
Cylists

All separated in this layout.

An all purpose road from Newlands/Belgard junction to the Anpost Luas junction.

Mainline widiened to 4 lanes each way. By removing the Cyclist pathway. as the Pathway are moved to the all purpose road. This then allows the Mainline to be widened without taking extra land.

There is enough room for a 4x4 bridge.

The renault showroom is now gone, so the interchange has more room to put a loop in with no extra cost.

The Purple line is the boundary width of the new interchange
Red line is pathways cycleways etc.
Orange is the actual new road area.

Road-Hog · 18-06-2009 10:34AM

mysterious wrote: »

So here is a pic of a proper layout

That allows
National road

Local traffic

Auxillary

Pedestrians

Cylists

All separated in this layout.

An all purpose road from Newlands/Belgard junction to the Anpost Luas junction.

Mainline widiened to 4 lanes each way. By removing the Cyclist pathway. as the Pathway are moved to the all purpose road. This then allows the Mainline to be widened without taking extra land.

There is enough room for a 4x4 bridge.

The renault showroom is now gone, so the interchange has more room to put a loop in with no extra cost.

The Purple line is the boundary width of the new interchange

Red line is pathways cycleways etc.

Orange is the actual new road area.

Based on the design fees yoiu have already saved them I think the NRA should sign you up immediately........:)

Irish and Proud · 18-06-2009 11:26AM

mysterious wrote: »

So here is a pic of a proper layout

That allows
National road

Local traffic

Auxillary

Pedestrians

Cylists

All separated in this layout.

An all purpose road from Newlands/Belgard junction to the Anpost Luas junction.

Mainline widiened to 4 lanes each way. By removing the Cyclist pathway. as the Pathway are moved to the all purpose road. This then allows the Mainline to be widened without taking extra land.

There is enough room for a 4x4 bridge.

The renault showroom is now gone, so the interchange has more room to put a loop in with no extra cost.

The Purple line is the boundary width of the new interchange

Red line is pathways cycleways etc.

Orange is the actual new road area.

...yeah, I'm just back from the Costa Blanca in Spain and there's a lot of service roads similar to what you've drawn. Dallas, Texas also seems to have a lot of them. I think they're a good idea, leaving the mainline for through traffic only. Also, the buses (as well as cyclists/pedestrians) could use service roads if they are made wide enough. What you've drawn is basically what should be done - there's plenty of room - if there are obstructions, they should simply be removed given the usage of the N7.

Regards!

murphaph · 18-06-2009 01:37PM

mysterious wrote: »

So here is a pic of a proper layout

That allows
National road

Local traffic

Auxillary

Pedestrians

Cylists

All separated in this layout.

An all purpose road from Newlands/Belgard junction to the Anpost Luas junction.

Mainline widiened to 4 lanes each way. By removing the Cyclist pathway. as the Pathway are moved to the all purpose road. This then allows the Mainline to be widened without taking extra land.

There is enough room for a 4x4 bridge.

The renault showroom is now gone, so the interchange has more room to put a loop in with no extra cost.

The Purple line is the boundary width of the new interchange

Red line is pathways cycleways etc.

Orange is the actual new road area.

Sure that's even more elaborate than what I was suggesting. I'm not even sure what you were arguing about anymore as you have included a cycle lane between Newlands and An Post on the southern side (along your service road). You were screaming at us that nobody cycles here and now you've included cycle lanes yourself...I give up.:rolleyes:

mysterious · 18-06-2009 02:41PM

murphaph wrote: »

Sure that's even more elaborate than what I was suggesting. I'm not even sure what you were arguing about anymore as you have included a cycle lane between Newlands and An Post on the southern side (along your service road). You were screaming at us that nobody cycles here and now you've included cycle lanes yourself...I give up.:rolleyes:

Cus you never seem to see sense on some issues, I don't know why maybe you lack the foresight here or else you just miss the bigger picture. Countless times you have given bad ideas for new roads such as this. Its a horrid plan to have cycleways and paths here at this DC on that side, it needs to be widened, and if you can think LONG TERM, maybe you will eventually begin to understand the basics of what I'm saying.

I said I didn't agree with cycle lanes and paths on the DC, there is room on the joels side. the service road needs to be built anyway. To keep local, LILO and businesses of the busy DC. Paths and cycleways can be built here.

They did the same thing from The new ORR to just before Clondalkin....Doubt they would have cycles ways on the DC...

murphaph · 18-06-2009 05:35PM

mysterious wrote: »

Cus you never seem to see sense on some issues, I don't know why maybe you lack the foresight here or else you just miss the bigger picture. Countless times you have given bad ideas for new roads such as this. Its a horrid plan to have cycleways and paths here at this DC on that side, it needs to be widened, and if you can think LONG TERM, maybe you will eventually begin to understand the basics of what I'm saying.

I said I didn't agree with cycle lanes and paths on the DC, there is room on the joels side. the service road needs to be built anyway. To keep local, LILO and businesses of the busy DC. Paths and cycleways can be built here.

They did the same thing from The new ORR to just before Clondalkin....Doubt they would have cycles ways on the DC...

Why didn't you just say at the start of this pointless argument that your favoured solution was not simply extinguishing the existing cycleway but ALSO to provide an offline cycleway along a service road slightly to the south of the current alignment? I thought (quite reasonably given your posts) that you just wanted the cycleway and footpath torn up and the road widened. Streithammel.

N7/N11 Newlands Cross & Arklow to Rathnew

Comments