N7/N11 Newlands Cross & Arklow to Rathnew

mysterious

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

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

mysterious wrote: »

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

hahaha....that is all.

mysterious

[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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Chris_533976

That layout looks good but I'd say that'd be an extremely tight loop, much tighter than those troublesome ones on the Red Cow. Could see lorrys having problems there.

L1011

Theres overground gas network equipment in the way of your new access paths to the south of the N7, mysterious. Would make it prohibitively expensive to build them for what they are.

Road-Hog

Looks like from the attached link that this job is out to tender.........

http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=JUN119797

Chris_533976

Good This is similar to the M17/18 one thats been out there. A prequal document.

Chris_533976

Newlands Cross junction will be 3x3 mainline. Sorry Mysterious

N7 Newlands Cross

• The provision of a grade-separated interchange at the junction of the N7 and the R113.

• The provision of approximately 1.8km of 3x3 lane dual carriageway on the N7 mainline.

• Widening of adjacent sections of the existing R113 Belgard and Fonthill Roads to accommodate the future provision of a Metro through the junction.

mysterious

This is absurd.


We are the people and WE DECIDE, not the gob****e people who can''t plan things with our money. It is our money.This money should be used right. Otherwise, this government out now. I'm sick of this disrepect. It's not good enough.

This is just not acceptable.

mysterious

Chris_533976 wrote: »

Newlands Cross junction will be 3x3 mainline. Sorry Mysterious

Said whom.

I live in the real world and no one is going to stop me from stating what is right and what is common sense.


The guys who claim to think they decide have got it very wrong. Anyone who is acending in this reality will know exactly what I'm talking about. Power doesn't rule the planet like it used too.

Of course i could just sit here and be a sheep and accept the shepards decision on this matter.

I don't so dont be sorry for me or anyone Chris, its not going ahead as 3+3

Chris_533976

Said the document I got from the NRA yesterday.

They do say in the same document that 85k cars use it too, just as confirmation of what was said a few pages ago.

mysterious

With the carshowrooms gone. There is nothing stopping them from making it 4+4 and the traffic numbers already at peak for 3+3

Why the **** are they building a 3+3 road based on present traffic numbers.


Its out****ingrageous.. NRA. are just retarded. They prove it to themselves. The whole company is an outcry joke. They are joke and nothing but a joke. Still not good enough.

ihatewallies

mysterious wrote: »

Said whom.

I live in the real world and no one is going to stop me from stating what is right and what is common sense.


The guys who claim to think they decide have got it very wrong. Anyone who is acending in this reality will know exactly what I'm talking about. Power doesn't rule the planet like it used too.

Of course i could just sit here and be a sheep and accept the shepards decision on this matter.

I don't so dont be sorry for me or anyone Chris, its not going ahead as 3+3

how's life on Mars these days?

Road-Hog

mysterious wrote: »

With the carshowrooms gone. There is nothing stopping them from making it 4+4 and the traffic numbers already at peak for 3+3

Why the **** are they building a 3+3 road based on present traffic numbers.


Its out****ingrageous.. NRA. are just retarded. They prove it to themselves. The whole company is an outcry joke. They are joke and nothing but a joke. Still not good enough.

Mysterious, you seem to be obsessed with 4 x 4 for this section of road can you name any dual carriageway in the country that is 4 x 4, what is the distance from newlands cross to the red cow interchange? at a guess I'd say 1 mile. If you made the section from newlands cross to red cow 4 x 4 you would have the 3 x 3 nass dual carriageway becomming 4x4 for about a mile then reverting back to 3x3 beyond the red cow, not sure what difference that would make to the whole scheme of things unless I'm picking you up wrong?

As for you NRA comments......not sure how an individual member of the public would go about influencing their decisions but have you ever attended any of the oral hearings for any of the road projects? Or do you just prefer to type away anonymously on internet discussion forums where you hope an NRA person may be viewing and take on board your points/opinions?

Also I'm sure that there is potential to amend the scope of the works to include the 4 x 4 section as said above it is only a pre-qual tender.

Chris_533976

I do agree that it might perhaps be a good idea to build it wide enough for 4x4 but only put 3x3 lanes on it for now. At least its futureproofed. Just make it wider than "just 3x3".

Also it doesnt say whether theres hard shoulder planned or not.

mysterious

ihatewallies wrote: »

how's life on Mars these days?

It's warming up right now, and water will flow soon once the polar ice caps melt it will fill the canyon.;)

But of course we are talking about newlands cross, there is no such thing "I'm sorta like NASA now

Carawaystick

Road-Hog wrote: »

Mysterious, you seem to be obsessed with 4 x 4 for this section of road can you name any dual carriageway in the country that is 4 x 4,

Section of the N25 between Douglas and the magic roundabout is 4 lanes each way.


Some of the M2 is D5M in Belfast.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=54.616844,-5.921204&spn=0.000789,0.002017&t=h&z=19


There's the small matter of the M50 which will have 4 lanes each way from the M1 to Tallaght or Firhouse.

The existing N7 at Newlands cross has 3 all purpose lanes and a bus lane, i.e. 4 lanes each way on the mainline.

mysterious

Chris_533976 wrote: »

I do agree that it might perhaps be a good idea to build it wide enough for 4x4 but only put 3x3 lanes on it for now. At least its futureproofed. Just make it wider than "just 3x3".

Also it doesnt say whether theres hard shoulder planned or not.

This my point WHY CAN'T THEY...


Have we not learned.


When you build a road now, the road design/capacity should have at least a 20 year life span.

So the Traffic is almost 90,000 here at capacity. What happens in 20 years. We dig this up and put a lane in when it cost little to nothing NOW.


Have I ever talked about the significance of now?? Present tense, NOW, as in this moment. Can we get it right in this point in time. I MEAN NOW. not yesterday not tommorrow not 1990 not 1999.

Based on current traffic levels any new road should have a mandatory life span of 20 years no ****ing excuse. or otherwise. The current proposal is a heap of ****e.They have a large slot of land - the car show rooms which needs to be flattened and incoporated into the interchange.

I drew a map and managed to easily fit four lanes each way.

L1011

If its 3 lanes + HS either side, thats grand. Absolutely no need to have a HS over bridges so it could easily be filleted away for a fourth lane in the future. If its bare 3+3 its very short sighted; unless the NRA really do intend to finish the M7 along its own alignment.

Road-Hog

mysterious wrote: »

This my point WHY CAN'T THEY...


Have we not learned.


When you build a road now, the road design/capacity should have at least a 20 year life span.

So the Traffic is almost 90,000 here at capacity. What happens in 20 years. We dig this up and put a lane in when it cost little to nothing NOW.


Have I ever talked about the significance of now?? Present tense, NOW, as in this moment. Can we get it right in this point in time. I MEAN NOW. not yesterday not tommorrow not 1990 not 1999.

Based on current traffic levels any new road should have a mandatory life span of 20 years no ****ing excuse. or otherwise. The current proposal is a heap of ****e.They have a large slot of land - the car show rooms which needs to be flattened and incoporated into the interchange.

I drew a map and managed to easily fit four lanes each way.

I still don't know what you are getting your boxers in a twist about? If we are in for a long drawn out recession/depression then who needs four lanes each way, traffic volumes will be actually dropping so maybe they (NRA) are just factoring this in to their 20year design horizon?

mysterious

Road-Hog wrote: »

I still don't know what you are getting your boxers in a twist about? If we are in for a long drawn out recession/depression then who needs four lanes each way, traffic volumes will be actually dropping so maybe they (NRA) are just factoring this in to their 20year design horizon?

Sure lets just be thick and stupid,


What would it cost to add another lane.

What would it cost to just leave it barred off, and have it there so we would never need to go near the bridge in 5 years.


Traffic is growing on this road.
When alll the inter urbans are complete and the M50 is finished traffic, will reach if not rise above 100,000 a day. Not to mention how much City west is sprawling currenty. Rathcoole is now a growing suburb. The Naas bypass widening. Millenium business parks,etc. So i don't know why your defending bad planning. Recession is actually slowing down now.

The pont you seem to miss, is, it's mandortory to build any road with a 20 year prjoection life span. Its out of date already.


Look at the short sigthness of the M50. At least the had room to put in two extra lanes at the median.


This road bridge shoud have four running lanes and a HS. at max width.
Btw the population of our country is still going. It gives no excuse for the NRA to build road's with no planning.

The Word Is Bor

Carawaystick wrote: »

Section of the N25 between Douglas and the magic roundabout is 4 lanes each way.

That's not exactly true. Eastbound there are 3 lanes going over the Magic Roundabout. Two lanes (from the Magic Roundabout) merge into the inside lane, which is essentially an auxillary lane. As it approaches the Douglas West junction there is a diverge lane for it and what was in the inside lane becomes the Douglas East diverge. So there are 4 lanes for about 500m. Going over Douglas there are two lanes eastbound.

Westbound there are two lanes going over Douglas. The Douglas merge lane joins these two lanes to form an auxillary lane running to the Magic Roundabout. The outer two lanes go over the Magic Roundabout and the diverge diverges into another lane towards the Magic Roundabout.

veryangryman

The Word Is Bor wrote: »

That's not exactly true. Eastbound there are 3 lanes going over the Magic Roundabout. Two lanes (from the Magic Roundabout) merge into the inside lane, which is essentially an auxillary lane. As it approaches the Douglas West junction there is a diverge lane for it and what was in the inside lane becomes the Douglas East diverge. So there are 4 lanes for about 500m. Going over Douglas there are two lanes eastbound.

Westbound there are two lanes going over Douglas. The Douglas merge lane joins these two lanes to form an auxillary lane running to the Magic Roundabout. The outer two lanes go over the Magic Roundabout and the diverge diverges into another lane towards the Magic Roundabout.

:eek: Thats quite a mouthful

Rule of thumb folks...If you need a third lane on your DC then there never was room for you to move into this town/city in the first place

Adding a 4th lane doesnt really add much in terms of speed of journey. If anything it makes it more dangerous. M50 southbound toll section to junction 6 is a deathtrap for weaving in and out for instance. And when the road goes back to 2-3 lanes, again more deathtrap related activity.

mysterious

veryangryman wrote: »

:eek: Thats quite a mouthful

Rule of thumb folks...If you need a third lane on your DC then there never was room for you to move into this town/city in the first place

Adding a 4th lane doesnt really add much in terms of speed of journey. If anything it makes it more dangerous. M50 southbound toll section to junction 6 is a deathtrap for weaving in and out for instance. And when the road goes back to 2-3 lanes, again more deathtrap related activity.

A 4th lane is not dangerous.......................................................................................................................................................................

Probably the most retarded thing ive ever hear on this forum.

veryangryman

mysterious wrote: »

A 4th lane is not dangerous..................................................................................................................................................

.....................
Not on its own but...

When the lanes narrow into say 3, a la the M50 sounthbound towards the N81 junction it becomes (shall we say) "tricky"

mysterious wrote: »

Probably the most retarded thing ive ever hear on this forum.

I dont appreciate the "retarded" comment, but i take it with a pinch of salt after reviewing other comments made by you mysterious.

mysterious

oh God.......

Veryangryman, what is then, the most intellegent to say.

It's not only incorrect but it'a absaloute nonsense!. If you can prove me wrong, I'll back up on my response.

Veryangryman, It's the most stupid thing i've ever heard here. The only thing that is dangerous is the person driving the car. I apologise for my reaction, but... still..

If you think adding an extra lane, what is the point of having a motorway.


It's more dangerous to have a road with three lanes that is over trafficked, than having a road of 4 lanes that is undertraficked. I don't understand how you could say something so silly.

L1011

The only 'danger' problem extra lanes have is when the lane is removed, e.g. as is currently done at Ballymount with the outermost lane. A lane which is dropped by a lane drop at a junction is about as 'dangerous' as a fluffy kitten.

Road-Hog

mysterious wrote: »

oh God.......

Veryangryman, what is then, the most intellegent to say.

It's not only incorrect but it'a absaloute nonsense!. If you can prove me wrong, I'll back up on my response.

Veryangryman, It's the most stupid thing i've ever heard here. The only thing that is dangerous is the person driving the car. I apologise for my reaction, but... still..

If you think adding an extra lane, what is the point of having a motorway.


It's more dangerous to have a road with three lanes that is over trafficked, than having a road of 4 lanes that is undertraficked. I don't understand how you could say something so silly.

Mysterious, what are your views/opinions/ideas based on? Your years of road design and traffic management experience?

mysterious

Road-Hog wrote: »

Mysterious, what are your views/opinions/ideas based on? Your years of road design and traffic management experience?

Common sense.

Road-Hog

mysterious wrote: »

Common sense.

Your abundance of 'common sense' is wasted on this forum, how the NRA / road design consultants could do with someone like you, have you ever considered offering your services, you could even generate some extra income during these difficult times:)

spacetweek

Although I agree the 3+3 arrangement is regrettable, we gotta remember that the NRA never said they were going to provide 4+4 - it was us that said that. Let's keep in mind that as much as some of us would like to believe it, the NRA don't actually read threads like this!

mysterious wrote: »

We are the people and WE DECIDE

No, we absolutely don't mate! The NRA do. See above.

mysterious wrote: »

When you build a road now, the road design/capacity should have at least a 20 year life span.

Be careful about making this assumption. This thinking is called Predict and Provide and isn't appropriate in an urban or even semi-urban area, because of the phenomenon of induced traffic.
Though one could argue that the strategic importance of the M7/M9 to Red Cow section of the N7 is so high that no traffic mitigation measure could ever be effective on it. We may be doomed to continually squeezing extra lanes in here for decades.

Finally, note the widening work to accommodate Metro West that the tender mentions. This means that MW will conflict with the exit and entrance ramps here. Not good. They really should just underground the thing, they have to dig up the whole site anyway.

Chris_533976

I **think** this whole thing is being planned with MW in mind. I dont think any of it will need to be dug up when MW comes along.

Sponge Bob

mysterious wrote: »

Common sense.

mysterious

spacetweek wrote: »

Although I agree the 3+3 arrangement is regrettable, we gotta remember that the NRA never said they were going to provide 4+4 - it was us that said that. Let's keep in mind that as much as some of us would like to believe it, the NRA don't actually read threads like this!

So now that we aware of the **** up.
Do we let the fucck up become a reality.

Do you like **** ups to happen with the foresight you have now?

No, we absolutely don't mate! The NRA do. See above.

Yes we do see this line.

Be careful about making this assumption. This thinking is called Predict and Provide and isn't appropriate in an urban or even semi-urban area, because of the phenomenon of induced traffic.
Though one could argue that the strategic importance of the M7/M9 to Red Cow section of the N7 is so high that no traffic mitigation measure could ever be effective on it. We may be doomed to continually squeezing extra lanes in here for decades.

So lets fucck it up then, and make sure we keep it a fucck up.

Finally, note the widening work to accommodate Metro West that the tender mentions. This means that MW will conflict with the exit and entrance ramps here. Not good. They really should just underground the thing, they have to dig up the whole site anyway.

So from your ingenius realisations what do you suggest we do?

spacetweek

Chris_533976 wrote: »

I **think** this whole thing is being planned with MW in mind. I dont think any of it will need to be dug up when MW comes along.

Sorry I should have been more clear here. I know they won't have to dig it up again when they build MW. I mean build a tunnel for MW when they're digging up the site for the grade separation.

What I'm saying is that even with the future junction allowing for MW, it still won't be good enough as there'll be a conflict as the tracks will pass in front of entrance and exit ramps.

mysterious wrote: »

So from your ingenius realisations what do you suggest we do?

I said it already. Fire off emails to them for now, then when their design drawings are out we'll have to hope there's room for the 7th and 8th lanes to be added to the overbridges.

And I'm not happy with the Metro West arrangements. It should be undergrounded.

Carawaystick

Reading between the lines of this The N11 scheme will be motorway.
Ther'll be an all purpose single carriageway road from North off the Beehive to Ballymoyle, in parallel with the new dual carriageway.
I wonder if they'll remove/close the Lilo's at Arklow rugby club to make it motorway the whole way to Clogh?

NedNew

Carawaystick wrote: »

Reading between the lines of this The N11 scheme will be motorway.
Ther'll be an all purpose single carriageway road from North off the Beehive to Ballymoyle, in parallel with the new dual carriageway.
I wonder if they'll remove/close the Lilo's at Arklow rugby club to make it motorway the whole way to Clogh?

We're in for a long wait first though... the contract won't be signed until Q4 of 2011.

nordydan

Carawaystick wrote: »

Reading between the lines of this The N11 scheme will be motorway.
Ther'll be an all purpose single carriageway road from North off the Beehive to Ballymoyle, in parallel with the new dual carriageway.
I wonder if they'll remove/close the Lilo's at Arklow rugby club to make it motorway the whole way to Clogh?

I always presumed this would be motorway (as the schemes either side are going to be to give one good reason).
However if you the 2nd paragraph of page 5 of the pdf linked above you'll read:

The route commences at the northern end of the full width dual carriageway section of the Arklow Bypass. The proposed Type 2 dual carriageway alignment passes west of Jack White’s Cross Roads and a grade – separated junction is proposed at this location (Brittas) to provide local access from the existing N11 (to be reclassified as the R772) all purpose road. A second grade-separated junction is proposed just to the west of ‘The Beehive’ junction (Wicklow South), providing access to Wicklow Town via the R751. Thereafter the route converges on the tie-in point with the southern end of the existing Rathnew/ Ashford dual carriageway near Ballinaclogh.

I hope this is a mistake :mad:

loyatemu

NedNew wrote: »

We're in for a long wait first though... the contract won't be signed until Q4 of 2011.

looks like a misprint - receipt of final tenders is in June 2010, so contract signing is probably Nov 2010 (as with the Gort-Tuam scheme).

BluntGuy

nordydan wrote: »

I hope this is a mistake :mad:

I'm not so sure about that. The way it explicitly refers to the adjacent scheme as a "full width dual carriageway" section would seem to suggest that Type 2 DC is what will be used.

Though, I've been under the impression for a long time that full DC was being used as part of a wider plan to have as much as the N11 as M.
Seems strange to me they'd M the Enniscorthy bit, but not this. Especially since they're building a local access route on this scheme.

I think some cost-cutting is taking place here.

Chris_533976

Add to that that the CPOs have presumably been done (ages ago) with full width in mind?

Carawaystick

yeah, at least one house was demolished, several others have bars across the windows. Oddly, someone was mowing the grass in one of these between Jack Whites and Barndarrig

The junction for Brittas Bay/Redcross was there in the cpo documents, along with the junction at the Beehive for Wicklow.


The CPO Inspectors report says:
"The proposed cross-section is a standard dual two-lane carriageway with a
median varying in width to suit the geometric requirements for visibility. Each
carriageway will consist of a seven metre wide trafficked carriageway comprising
two lanes of 3.5m width with 2.5m wide hard shoulders and 3.0m wide verges.
The central median shall be a minimum width of 3m, which includes two 1.0m
wide hardstrips. The overall minimum width between back of verges is 28m.
Typical cross sections for the N11, Local and Regional Roads are shown on
Drawing N11/EIS/3/1.1.12 of Volume 3 of the EIS"

http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/reports/CH2/RCH2145.pdf

murphaph

Type II would be very short sighted here. If they must use Type II along the N11 then do it for the Enniscorthy Bypass and make this bit full motorway. They are putting the last nail in the M11 coffin if they proceed with type II here and as mentioned the CPO is already through and the land take is almost certainly wide enough for D2M so actually Type II would be a waste of money (already spent money!).