N7/N11 Newlands Cross & Arklow to Rathnew

murphaph · 14-08-2009 1:40pm

mysterious wrote: »

Can you not see that the blue line (the land take you now claim would be required, less than your first image clearly) is STILL going to prevent lorries getting in and out to the loading bays! Do you believe the trucks in that picture would really be able to get in and out?

They are 40' trailers Mysterious, not Ford Fiesta vans. I'd say it's already tight getting in and out of those loading bays as it is.

L1011 · 14-08-2009 6:39pm

mysterious wrote: »

[I
The removal, of pavement,bus lane, cycle lane and median/verges will allow more free space, there is a verge of 5 to 10 metres that is between the actual N6 and the boundary of the premises. It's the extra landtake would be the CPO side of things. But it would give a good overall clearance for a 7.5metre road, and the effect would be minimal.

Except they can't remove the pavement as it would mean no pedestrian access to the warehouse premises. Removing the bus/cycle lanes would also have cyclists mixing with mainline traffic.

You're dreaming, again.

mysterious · 14-08-2009 11:11pm

MYOB wrote: »

Except they can't remove the pavement as it would mean no pedestrian access to the warehouse premises. Removing the bus/cycle lanes would also have cyclists mixing with mainline traffic.

You're dreaming, again.

No i'm not:)

The path and cylce lane can be moved to the Distrubuter road. The same thing was done where they put a distrubuter road from ORR to Newlands cross. There is a path and cycle lane on Joels side the whole way. The cyclists would opt to use the distrubuter road rather than the DC. for Cyclists would be turning for the Belgard road. I was waiting for a bus on this stretch of road last week for an hour and one person used this path and he was a runner...... that was it. The distrubuter road is needed. And as far as I know the planning applicant put this distrubuter road in anyway as far as the AN post building.

But in future I would like to see that dangerous L+P LILO intersecting with the Distrubuter road rather than directly onto the N7 carriegway where all the mainline lanes converge. It's very dangerous here and when traffic grows at peak time accidents will happen.

Priority have to be put first.

mysterious · 14-08-2009 11:14pm

murphaph wrote: »

Can you not see that the blue line (the land take you now claim would be required, less than your first image clearly) is STILL going to prevent lorries getting in and out to the loading bays! Do you believe the trucks in that picture would really be able to get in and out?

They are 40' trailers Mysterious, not Ford Fiesta vans. I'd say it's already tight getting in and out of those loading bays as it is.

I can assure that you would never get a job under roads department for the constant sideling of every future road plan that has came on this board. I really wonder what the hell should go ahead under your guidelines.:D

This is the norm in most countries. I have seen many houses buildozed under CPOS around the country where the inter urbans are been built now.

Most people would agree with me that the attention of 100.000 vehicles have to be under priority over a loading bay or a house for example. If we were to be nit picking like you, we wouldnt have the motorway system down the country.

FACT.

mysterious · 14-08-2009 11:19pm

MYOB wrote: »

Except they can't remove the pavement as it would mean no pedestrian access to the warehouse premises. Removing the bus/cycle lanes would also have cyclists mixing with mainline traffic.

You're dreaming, again.

You honestly think people walk to that warehouse ROFFFFFFFFFL.

If you can find somone that walks to this warehouse from their house, I will eat my jumper. Seriously there is practically NO residential area around here for at least a good distance. Even at that rate, give or take 100 people work there would drive there. I can't see how they wouldn't.

But this topic is pointless.

The fact remains of what priorities need to be met.

murphaph · 15-08-2009 10:31am

mysterious wrote: »

I can assure that you would never get a job under roads department for the constant sideling of every future road plan that has came on this board. I really wonder what the hell should go ahead under your guidelines.:D

This is the norm in most countries. I have seen many houses buildozed under CPOS around the country where the inter urbans are been built now.

Most people would agree with me that the attention of 100.000 vehicles have to be under priority over a loading bay or a house for example. If we were to be nit picking like you, we wouldnt have the motorway system down the country.

FACT.

You're f**king clueles mate. This is ALREADY a 6 lane highway and you want to pay MILLIONS more to CPO a warehouse, demolish it just to add a distributor road on a section of road that only has traffic jams because of the lights at Newlands. You can't gold plate every friggin scheme or you'd RAPIDLY run out of money. MONEY is ALWAYS the limiting factor!

btw, less of the slight of hand. It's not a house or "a loading bay" it's a complete distribution centre that would cost millions to buy from the property owner. There's actually a cheaper way through for your distributor road that would leave the warehouse accessable to trucks and WOULD only require the demolition of 1 house but you seem to have overlooked that obvious solution to your problem.

There are MUCH greater priorities around the country (N20, N24 etc.) that should be sorted long before we spend MILLIONS bulldozing warehouses to build roads we don't really need. Like you said....priorities!

L1011 · 15-08-2009 3:04pm

mysterious wrote: »

No i'm not:)

The path and cylce lane can be moved to the Distrubuter road. The same thing was done where they put a distrubuter road from ORR to Newlands cross. There is a path and cycle lane on Joels side the whole way. The cyclists would opt to use the distrubuter road rather than the DC. for Cyclists would be turning for the Belgard road. I was waiting for a bus on this stretch of road last week for an hour and one person used this path and he was a runner...... that was it. The distrubuter road is needed. And as far as I know the planning applicant put this distrubuter road in anyway as far as the AN post building.

But in future I would like to see that dangerous L+P LILO intersecting with the Distrubuter road rather than directly onto the N7 carriegway where all the mainline lanes converge. It's very dangerous here and when traffic grows at peak time accidents will happen.

Priority have to be put first.

Moving it to the distributor road means you have a net saving of 0 metres width. Pointless.

mysterious · 15-08-2009 11:01pm

murphaph wrote: »

You're f**king clueles mate. This is ALREADY a 6 lane highway and you want to pay MILLIONS more to CPO a warehouse, demolish it just to add a distributor road on a section of road that only has traffic jams because of the lights at Newlands. You can't gold plate every friggin scheme or you'd RAPIDLY run out of money. MONEY is ALWAYS the limiting factor!

btw, less of the slight of hand. It's not a house or "a loading bay" it's a complete distribution centre that would cost millions to buy from the property owner. There's actually a cheaper way through for your distributor road that would leave the warehouse accessable to trucks and WOULD only require the demolition of 1 house but you seem to have overlooked that obvious solution to your problem.

There are MUCH greater priorities around the country (N20, N24 etc.) that should be sorted long before we spend MILLIONS bulldozing warehouses to build roads we don't really need. Like you said....priorities!

You would have a clue if you actually read my post... .. ..

I didn't say demolish the warehouse, nor does it need to be knocked.

mysterious · 15-08-2009 11:02pm

MYOB wrote: »

Moving it to the distributor road means you have a net saving of 0 metres width. Pointless.

Yes it does.:) go look at it.

L1011 · 16-08-2009 4:37am

mysterious wrote: »

Yes it does.:) go look at it.

That reply has absolutely no context to what you quoted.

mysterious · 16-08-2009 5:15am

Study maps of the given area.

Study basic measurements.

If I take 5 metres of a mainbound carriegway.

This now means I have 5 metres of land to work with.

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaly basic math.

L1011 · 16-08-2009 3:48pm

When you move 5 metres of carriageway to a distributor road which is adjacent in the same land take, you have zero metres to work with.

mysterious · 17-08-2009 12:39am

MYOB wrote: »

When you move 5 metres of carriageway to a distributor road which is adjacent in the same land take, you have zero metres to work with.

No you have 5 metres "to" work with. The road space is transferred to the distrubutor road giving this section 5 metres to work with. like 5 metres in width of extra land. You get it? I do and I'm sure others do. Good job, great. now move on.

Your arguments are petty. The paths, Bus lane, cycle lane is removed from the Mainline giving more room. There is room on the verges already for a distrubuter road for most of it's lenght, it would be tight at the distrubution centre alright.

But removing the derelict two houses on the other side would be the best solution. I've drawn a map and there is plenty of land to work with.

murphaph · 17-08-2009 11:46am

mysterious wrote: »

No you have 5 metres "to" work with. The road space is transferred to the distrubutor road giving this section 5 metres to work with. like 5 metres in width of extra land. You get it? I do and I'm sure others do. Good job, great. now move on..

That means you ARE taking additional land from the side of the existing corridor. You have been claiming that you can add this distributor road with no additional land take which is clearly nonsense.

mysterious wrote: »

Your arguments are petty. The paths, Bus lane, cycle lane is removed from the Mainline giving more room. There is room on the verges already for a distrubuter road for most of it's lenght, it would be tight at the distrubution centre alright..

You'd have to provide thos footpaths and cycle lanes on the blasted distributor road itself so no net gain!

mysterious wrote: »

But removing the derelict two houses on the other side would be the best solution. I've drawn a map and there is plenty of land to work with.

oh good. Shame there's no money.

mysterious · 17-08-2009 3:14pm

There is land between the N7 and the distrubuter road. The bus lane and cylce path removal IS GIVEN TO THE DISTRUBUTER ROAD.

The distrubuter road is a width 7.5meters. The extra land take is minumal. I did state there would extra land take but not a lot.

mysterious · 17-08-2009 3:16pm

murphaph wrote: »

That means you ARE taking additional land from the side of the existing corridor. You have been claiming that you can add this distributor road with no additional land take which is clearly nonsense.

Obviously you don't read post's properly.

You'd have to provide thos footpaths and cycle lanes on the blasted distributor road itself so no net gain!

The room is provided.

oh good. Shame there's no money.

Thats what you think:rolleyes:

rameire · 17-08-2009 6:23pm

just need to point out a fact.

the median from the red cow junction all the way up to the junction with the road leading into Heiton buckleys and trans thingy distribution centre, is a concrete barrier.
the median shown in your pic mysterious which you want to use is not there anymore, since the upgrade.

it is one single continuous barrier.

L1011 · 17-08-2009 6:52pm

mysterious wrote: »

No you have 5 metres "to" work with. The road space is transferred to the distrubutor road giving this section 5 metres to work with. like 5 metres in width of extra land. You get it? I do and I'm sure others do. Good job, great. now move on.

Your arguments are petty. The paths, Bus lane, cycle lane is removed from the Mainline giving more room. There is room on the verges already for a distrubuter road for most of it's lenght, it would be tight at the distrubution centre alright.

And where are you getting the land for the distributor road from? There is no space to spare.

mysterious wrote: »

I've drawn a map and there is plenty of land to work with.

You drawing a map doesn't make land magically appear. And you're drawing it on a very old satellite photo which doesn't reflect the reality on the ground.

And your distributor road is also being placed over a high pressure gas pipeline, which is never going to be allowed. Again, mysteriousland and reality are worlds apart.

Steviemak · 17-08-2009 7:41pm

Threads with Mysterious involved become so boring and tedious. I can't see myself revisiting this one even though I am very interested in the Newlands Cross Junction.

Edit: I may pop back in a few weeks in the, probably, vain hope that the conversation has moved on.;)

mysterious · 17-08-2009 9:35pm

Steviemak wrote: »

Threads with Mysterious involved become so boring and tedious. I can't see myself revisiting this one even though I am very interested in the Newlands Cross Junction.

Edit: I may pop back in a few weeks in the, probably, vain hope that the conversation has moved on.;)

I have a map drawn out. This will solve the problem here at this location and will also solve the moaning and whingeing on this thread such as yourself. I will post it up tomorrow.

Nobody forced you to come here. you know.

mysterious · 17-08-2009 9:37pm

MYOB wrote: »

And where are you getting the land for the distributor road from? There is no space to spare.

You drawing a map doesn't make land magically appear. And you're drawing it on a very old satellite photo which doesn't reflect the reality on the ground.

And your distributor road is also being placed over a high pressure gas pipeline, which is never going to be allowed. Again, mysteriousland and reality are worlds apart.

Yes there is go look again.

L1011 · 17-08-2009 9:48pm

I'm not the one that needs to look again, the man with the out of date aerial is...

mysterious · 17-08-2009 10:20pm

rameire · 17-08-2009 11:28pm

found all the road designs for the new newlands cross junction and the turmoil that will ensue once construction is started.

a whole new road will be created just south of the current road from just after the heiton buckley and the disti road. this will continue on to create a new junction with the belgard road, this new road will continue on west to rejoin the naas road at the boot road junction.

looks good and well thought out.

if you all promise to play fair and be nice ill post the links.

oh and it looks like they will be removing the bus lane from outside the disti centre and making it a normal lane.
thus making it 4 lanes west up to a point

rameire · 17-08-2009 11:48pm

feck it.

http://roads.southdublin.ie/dmdocuments/Newlands%20Cross%20EIS/Chapter%2001.pdf

http://roads.southdublin.ie/dmdocuments/Newlands%20Cross%20EIS/Chapter%2003.pdf

mysterious · 18-08-2009 12:52am

rameire wrote: »

feck it.

http://roads.southdublin.ie/dmdocuments/Newlands%20Cross%20EIS/Chapter%2001.pdf

http://roads.southdublin.ie/dmdocuments/Newlands%20Cross%20EIS/Chapter%2003.pdf

There is nothing new in that heap of crap.

Ah dinosaur could plan a better layout than that old EIS. pffft.

mysterious · 18-08-2009 1:03am

rameire wrote: »

found all the road designs for the new newlands cross junction and the turmoil that will ensue once construction is started.

a whole new road will be created just south of the current road from just after the heiton buckley and the disti road. this will continue on to create a new junction with the belgard road, this new road will continue on west to rejoin the naas road at the boot road junction.

looks good and well thought out.

if you all promise to play fair and be nice ill post the links.

oh and it looks like they will be removing the bus lane from outside the disti centre and making it a normal lane.
thus making it 4 lanes west up to a point

The old designs is a cheapish disney road. thats what it is.

There is no coherence of intergrated local and national traffic separation. No actual thought on building a local road for local traffic and giving the N7 more grade separated approach.

They got the ORR ring road right at least. The boot road (local adjacent road) is heavily used now. This removes thousands of local vehicles that use short trips between Citywest and the Redcow. The extension of the distributor road should be built adjacent to the Belgard road up to the Luas park and ride.

Freeing up commuter, local, commerical traffic off the mainbound N7. it would be fair to say that this road is vital for not just easing traffic but giving local traffic an alternative to get around the region and plus for safety reasons too. The distributor road would give two way access to all the business located on either side of the N7. The NB city direction carriageway is not as bad as Joels lane has a dedicated lane inbound for dangerous LILO traffic

The interchange is a load of ****e though. A 6 narrow lane bridge. Loads of room for extra width. Can't see the problem?] It is just ****e.

Rameire do the people in the S.d.d.c office get paid for designing really crap unprofessional road designs. I would seriously would have the intention of getting some international road engineers to sort out this mess. First of all there is no way they would spend this money on building that type of interchange on such a strategic national road. It is the most important ecnomic route to the country. It is the lung of the entire south and West of Ireland. There needs to be a much more strategic planning on this region for long term purposes. Citywest is another growth area of the western Dublin Region. It is one of the last remaing undeveloped land within S. Dublin county.

mysterious · 18-08-2009 1:46am

L1011 · 18-08-2009 8:14am

First drawing puts a road over a high pressure gas pipeline - can't happen

Second drawing cuts two holes off a golf course - for which you'd have to CPO the entire thing as you'd make it inoperable. Can't happen.

Tech3 · 18-08-2009 8:54am

MYOB wrote: »

Second drawing cuts two holes off a golf course - for which you'd have to CPO the entire thing as you'd make it inoperable. Can't happen.

A couple of big viaducts would do the trick. Can you imagine trying to putt the 18th hole with N7 traffic blaring around you!!

N7/N11 Newlands Cross & Arklow to Rathnew

Comments