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
M11/N11 - M50 (J4) to Coyne's Cross (J14) [options published]
Options
Comments
-
-
Are you proposing this new junction to be built on the marshy wetlands just to the south west of the current junction?
not a full new junction, move the on/off ramps further south and close the mess around Kilmac village. TBH I'd forgotten there was a marsh there so it may not be an option.0 -
not a full new junction, move the on/off ramps further south and close the mess around Kilmac village. TBH I'd forgotten there was a marsh there so it may not be an option.
To be fair I'm sure it could be overcome with engineering solutions but its just another example of the issues the designers are going to have to face. The constraints must be endless.0 -
For the last time:
- Not all roads - including motorways - are built to facilitate commuters. This can be verified by looking at a road map of Ireland for 5 seconds.
- So far as I am aware, no-one is claiming that a new motorway route is going to fix everything. As far as I am aware, most on this forum do see the need for and are in support of public transport.
- In places the current route tries to be both a long distance road and village street. It fails as both. Just look at Kilmacanoge. This is why a motorway bypass is/should be considered.
Again - and it seems necessary to repeat the point - this is about more than commuters. Again, look at this mess and explain - in the context of that - why a bypass should not be considered.
Nonsense. I regularly travel Dublin-Wexford off-peak or contra-peak and Kilmac is at most a minor inconvenience, slow to 60 for less than a miniute southbound and bang the CC back on.
The only justification for building a new alignment is to cater for commuter traffic volumes which is just going to allow even higher volumes to converge on the next pinch point as has happened with the M7 widening.
Providing public transport solutions INSTEAD of facilitating ever increasing volumes of unsustainable car commuting is the only thing that will solve the traffic issues on the N11, or at least provide an alternative for those who switch.
The argument that PT can also be done but we must build more roads for cars is no more than a mask for those who are insistent on having their selfish and damaging car use catered for no matter what.
It is plainly obvious that many want public transport for others so long as they can continue with their car commuting unhindered.
At this point more road building of this type is nothing more than a subsidy for this behaviour and a scandalous waste of public money.0 -
Nonsense. I regularly travel Dublin-Wexford off-peak or contra-peak and Kilmac is at most a minor inconvenience, slow to 60 for less than a miniute southbound and bang the CC back on.
The only justification for building a new alignment is to cater for commuter traffic volumes which is just going to allow even higher volumes to converge on the next pinch point as has happened with the M7 widening.
Providing public transport solutions INSTEAD of facilitating ever increasing volumes of unsustainable car commuting is the only thing that will solve the traffic issues on the N11, or at least provide an alternative for those who switch.
The argument that PT can also be done but we must build more roads for cars is no more than a mask for those who are insistent on having their selfish and damaging car use catered for no matter what.
It is plainly obvious that many want public transport for others so long as they can continue with their car commuting unhindered.
At this point more road building of this type is nothing more than a subsidy for this behaviour and a scandalous waste of public money.
But this is exactly the jist of a large majority of the local opposition to this project. They want everyone else to use public transport so they can continue to use a national road as a local road.
There's 2 options, either new alignments or a combination of parallel link roads and minor road junction closures.
The road isn't fit for purpose and people who keep shouting public transport are completely missing the point of this proposed upgrade.0 -
Advertisement
-
But this is exactly the jist of a large majority of the local opposition to this project. They want everyone else to use public transport so they can continue to use a national road as a local road.
There's 2 options, either new alignments or a combination of parallel link roads and minor road junction closures.
The road isn't fit for purpose and people who keep shouting public transport are completely missing the point of this proposed upgrade.
Nailed it. I will pinch that observation for my submission against upgrading the existing road if I may?!0 -
Kilmac might be only a minor inconvenience for you, driving past the place at midnight, but you don't speak for everyone. The N11 through Kilmac tries to serve as both a long distance road and a local street. A street-road hybrid or a "stroad". Although this particular stroad has more features of a road than a street, it's clearly being used as a street by houses, industrial premises etc.Nonsense. I regularly travel Dublin-Wexford off-peak or contra-peak and Kilmac is at most a minor inconvenience, slow to 60 for less than a miniute southbound and bang the CC back on.
That's not true. There is value in segregating local usage from long distance travel. Some of the most expensive and technically complex junctions in Ireland are in places where there are few or no commuters. Take the M4/M6 junction in Kinnegad or the M7/M8 diverge south of Portlaoise. How many commuters use those? If this rerouting happens isn't going to be a panacea for commuters, it's just going to provide segregation.The only justification for building a new alignment is to cater for commuter traffic volumes which is just going to allow even higher volumes to converge on the next pinch point as has happened with the M7 widening.
So you want to leave a motorway gap and a lot of stroads in place on a key long distance route? Remember, what I've suggested is the construction of a 2-lane-each way motorway for long distance travel with 2/3rds of the current route reallocated to buses, cyclists and one lane each way as the "alternative route" that might be useful for some local traffic. And also breaking the median in Kilmacanoge to provide a pedestrian crossing.Providing public transport solutions INSTEAD of facilitating ever increasing volumes of unsustainable car commuting is the only thing that will solve the traffic issues on the N11, or at least provide an alternative for those who switch.
In short, we would be replacing a 4 lane dual carriageway with a 4 lane motorway, decommissioning the current route as a long distance route except for buses. Only because a continuous motorway is appropriate, along with appropriate re-use of the existing route. How exactly is this going to facilitate hordes of new evil mean and nasty car commuters?
I don't even know where to start with this.The argument that PT can also be done but we must build more roads for cars is no more than a mask for those who are insistent on having their selfish and damaging car use catered for no matter what.
It is plainly obvious that many want public transport for others so long as they can continue with their car commuting unhindered.
Have you - literally - ever taken a peak hour morning train or tram in the Dublin Area? I mean ever? Spoiler alert: there are no shortage of people in the Dublin area who want to use public transport. Most of us thusly support the expansion of public transport because, (again, spoiler alert) many of us are public transport users ourselves.
Are you talking about all roads, or just this one in particular? Are there specific other upgrades you want to nix?At this point more road building of this type is nothing more than a subsidy for this behaviour and a scandalous waste of public money.0 -
2 lanes of moderately heavy traffic driving south through the Glen today.
Both lanes moving well at 95-100kph as you would expect from a National Route.
What you do not expect on a National Route is someone slowing to almost a stop here, in the left lane (not the hard shoulder) before turning in to buy plants or stuff.
https://goo.gl/maps/QwaURBzaYf6QPWkx6
The van in front of us left an awful lot of rubber on the road coming to a stop.
There's no way they can upgrade and keep all the local access.0 -
Seen that before (quite regular at the southbound Kilmac garage, albeit 60kph here) and the worst thing about it, there already is an alternative entrance into the garden centre off the Glenview flyover.0
-
Seen that before (quite regular at the southbound Kilmac garage, albeit 60kph here) and the worst thing about it, there already is an alternative entrance into the garden centre off the Glenview flyover.
Then why not start at physically closing off all entrances on this road that are not absolutely vital for access to the premises? That could literally be done next week.0 -
Advertisement
-
Then why not start at physically closing off all entrances on this road that are not absolutely vital for access to the premises? That could literally be done next week.
I'm guessing a bit here, but because the N11 is also functioning as a local access route, a business could make a reasonable case that by forcing the closure of an existing entrance that you would be curtailing its business and seek compensation for loss of future earnings.
Also, you can't just remove entrances/right of ways at the stroke of a pen. I think there's a fair bit of process involved.0 -
Then why not start at physically closing off all entrances on this road that are not absolutely vital for access to the premises? That could literally be done next week.
I asked the ARUP guys this, and they said it was not really a good idea because it would create more problems than it would solve.
Apparently from a road safety/good road design point of view one of the biggest problems in J9/10 area is the curvature and gradients of the approach either side of the Glen.
Closing all the substandard accesses would increase the average speed of the traffic entering the Glen and compound the safety problems of the road as it is now.0 -
Also, you can't just remove entrances/right of ways at the stroke of a pen. I think there's a fair bit of process involved.
ARUP guys also said that the council cannot make a change that means a property has no access. If they want to close the access they have to CPO the strip of land that has the access and ensure that property has another point of access either in a safer place on the same road, or create new access on different boundary of property to an existing road, or create a new road to the different boundary!
And if none of the above is possible they have to CPO the entire property in order to shut the access! A fair bit of process indeed!0 -
ARUP guys also said that the council cannot make a change that means a property has no access. If they want to close the access they have to CPO the strip of land that has the access and ensure that property has another point of access either in a safer place on the same road, or create new access on different boundary of property to an existing road, or create a new road to the different boundary!
And if none of the above is possible they have to CPO the entire property in order to shut the access! A fair bit of process indeed!
In Ireland maybe...anywhere else it would be done within 3 months0 -
ARUP guys also said that the council cannot make a change that means a property has no access. If they want to close the access they have to CPO the strip of land that has the access and ensure that property has another point of access either in a safer place on the same road, or create new access on different boundary of property to an existing road, or create a new road to the different boundary!
And if none of the above is possible they have to CPO the entire property in order to shut the access! A fair bit of process indeed!
Moreso that an entirely new motorway alignment costing hundreds of millions through a sensitive, populated area and years of a fraught, contentious and drawn out planning process?0 -
Moreso that an entirely new motorway alignment costing hundreds of millions through a sensitive, populated area and years of a fraught, contentious and drawn out planning process?
If you mean the Glen of the Downs there is no way they will get a motorway through there, and won't even try to get planning for one.
If they are hell bent on a motorway it will be one of the offline options. If they don't have the stomach for that they will try and squeeze some sort of fudge, increased capacity but non motorway standard solution through the Glen and hope for the best.0 -
If you mean the Glen of the Downs there is no way they will get a motorway through there, and won't even try to get planning for one.
If they are hell bent on a motorway it will be one of the offline options. If they don't have the stomach for that they will try and squeeze some sort of fudge, increased capacity but non motorway standard solution through the Glen and hope for the best.
And revisit it in 2040 when they realise that they made a mess of it again. If they do go with a red route upgrade it needs to be done right and should be future proofed.0 -
ARUP guys also said that the council cannot make a change that means a property has no access. If they want to close the access they have to CPO the strip of land that has the access and ensure that property has another point of access either in a safer place on the same road, or create new access on different boundary of property to an existing road, or create a new road to the different boundary!
And if none of the above is possible they have to CPO the entire property in order to shut the access! A fair bit of process indeed!
And is it not allowed in Ireland to simply build a parallel frontage road along the main road and give the property access to that without a CPO procedure?
Because at least in my country (the Netherlands) this happens all the time; when a major road with properties along it has to be upgraded, we just build a parallel local access road to the side, and to my knowledge no special procedures are required for this. These parallel frontage roads also often double as a cycling path (cyclists + local motorists accessing the properties + tractors and the like).0 -
And is it not allowed in Ireland to simply build a parallel frontage road along the main road and give the property access to that without a CPO procedure?
Because at least in my country (the Netherlands) this happens all the time; when a major road with properties along it has to be upgraded, we just build a parallel local access road to the side, and to my knowledge no special procedures are required for this. These parallel frontage roads also often double as a cycling path (cyclists + local motorists accessing the properties + tractors and the like).
Many parts of the existing N11 through and near the glen have properties on both sides of the road. There isn't any room for a new frontage road. There isn't even room for an additional lane.0 -
And revisit it in 2040 when they realise that they made a mess of it again. If they do go with a red route upgrade it needs to be done right and should be future proofed.
what exactly does that mean though - how do you future proof a road upgrade when it is well established that increased capacity generates increased traffic? No amount of capacity is enough - it's the wrong approach.0 -
Advertisement
-
I can recall the road through the Glen of the Downs in the 1970s when it was just a narrow two way road, only the odd passing car at night. The glen road has gone through iterations since then but it's hard to see how you could enlarge it any further without completely sacrificing the valley floor. You see roads on the continent that are raised on pillars/ stilts - maybe that's the future here through the glen and on past Kilmac etc.0
-
I can recall the road through the Glen of the Downs in the 1970s when it was just a narrow two way road, only the odd passing car at night. The glen road has gone through iterations since then but it's hard to see how you could enlarge it any further without completely sacrificing the valley floor. You see roads on the continent that are raised on pillars/ stilts - maybe that's the future here through the glen and on past Kilmac etc.
Surely a motorway on stilts through the Glen would qualify as a significant adverse impact on a special conservation area?
If so, it is never going to happen.0 -
what exactly does that mean though - how do you future proof a road upgrade when it is well established that increased capacity generates increased traffic? No amount of capacity is enough - it's the wrong approach.
Just that it should accommodate all users. No point cpo'ing 5m off peoples gardens every few years because they only allowed for bus lanes but not cyclest or pedestrians. We are where we are because they allowed so many local and private access in the last upgrade. As usual we are paying the price for half baked infrastructure.0 -
Just that it should accommodate all users. No point cpo'ing 5m off peoples gardens every few years because they only allowed for bus lanes but not cyclest or pedestrians. We are where we are because they allowed so many local and private access in the last upgrade. As usual we are paying the price for half baked infrastructure.
The only way to accommodate all users is separate the traffic - build an offline motorway for mainline strategic, long distance, freight etc and retain the existing corridor for public transport, local access, cyclists etc.
This would not involve any significant changes to existing road other than road markings and signage.
If they chose the cyan route the motorway is futureproofed for additional lanes or access.
Retaining the existing corridor and rebranding the N11 with a focus on public transport provides some futurproofing for long term options - eg a route to extend the Luas from Brides Glen to Newtownmountkennedy if they so desired.
It's a win win for everybody - except those who will be CPO'd on CYAN obviously, but whatever they do there will be individuals who are CPO'd.0 -
Agree, but you and me seem to be the only 2 that see it from this point of view.0
-
Agree, but you and me seem to be the only 2 that see it from this point of view.
Sadly you're right. It is frustrating because anything else goes against all logic. Not building a motorway here undermines all the existing investment in the M11 at Arklow and Enniscorthy.
I have had many conversations in real life along the lines of:
"Do you agree that it is inevitable that one day there will be a continuous motorway along this stretch of road, connecting North Wicklow and Dublin - i.e it is supposed to be one of the major strategic roads in Europe, never mind Ireland?"
"Yes, absolutely, that makes sense."
"And do you agree that because of the European laws protecting the Glen, that motorway can never be built by upgrading the road through the Glen?"
"Yes, absolutely, they have to abide by the law"
"So if a) they have to build a motorway and b) they cannot build it in the Glen, what options are they left with?"
"Ah hang on, more roads are not the answer, at least definitely not in my back yard, yadda yadda yadda"0 -
Sadly you're right. It is frustrating because anything else goes against all logic. Not building a motorway here undermines all the existing investment in the M11 at Arklow and Enniscorthy.
I have had many conversations in real life along the lines of:
"Do you agree that it is inevitable that one day there will be a continuous motorway along this stretch of road, connecting North Wicklow and Dublin - i.e it is supposed to be one of the major strategic roads in Europe, never mind Ireland?"
"Yes, absolutely, that makes sense."
"And do you agree that because of the European laws protecting the Glen, that motorway can never be built by upgrading the road through the Glen?"
"Yes, absolutely, they have to abide by the law"
"So if a) they have to build a motorway and b) they cannot build it in the Glen, what options are they left with?"
"Ah hang on, more roads are not the answer, at least definitely not in my back yard, yadda yadda yadda"
The correct answer is to double track and electrify the train line at least to Wicklow town and preferably even much farther south first + extend Luas green to Bray, so that massive amounts of commuters can now take the train/Luas rather than stay in traffic.
Then when there are still dangerous situations on the current N11 and major congestion issues, we can talk about a new motorway.0 -
The correct answer is to double track and electrify the train line at least to Wicklow town and preferably even much farther south first + extend Luas green to Bray, so that massive amounts of commuters can now take the train/Luas rather than stay in traffic.
Then when there are still dangerous situations on the current N11 and major congestion issues, we can talk about a new motorway.
The debate about east coast rail capacity is a separate issue, although undoubtedly an increase in train users would have a positive effect on the N11.
But how many of the scheme specific objectives to this proposed project would an increase in the rail capacity achieve:
From the Project Brief at https://n11m11.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PAG-Unit-3.0-Project-Brief-V3.pdf :-ECONOMY- Improve the efficiency of the N11/M11 corridor between Junction 4 and Junction 14
- Improve efficiency, reliability and journey times within European Route 1 (E01)
- Improve connectivity with the wider European market by reliability of journey time between ports and ease of movement
- Improve resilience of the Irish market by improving connectivity to Rosslare Europort and the wider European market
- Generate positive economic benefits to road users:
Improving journey time reliability.
SAFETY
• To reduce the frequency and severity of collisions on the M11/N11
corridor between Junction 4 and Junction 14; and
• To support the Government’s Road Safety Strategy.
ENVIRONMENT
To reduce CO2 emissions and particulate emissions through a
reduction in fuel consumption; and
• To manage noise impacts in populated areas.
• To minimise the impact on designated Natura 2000 sites
• To seek to preserve existing well established communities
ACCESSIBILITY & INCLUSION
• To provide a corridor that will encourage and support investment and
employment in the wider area;
• To improve road based public transport journey time and journey time
reliability; and
• To achieve the objective of national, regional and local planning policy.
INTEGRATION
To improve connectivity to the national road network;
• To provide continuity of road type between Junction 6 and Junction 15;
• To improve connectivity to Rosslare Europort;
• To be compatible with adopted land use objectives; and
• To complement wider government policy
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Promoting walking and cycling by providing a safer environment for nonmotorised road users
Even if you had the best rail system upgrade imaginable how many of the above objectives would that achieve?
I've italicised the ones I think would be achieved. In other words, very few of them. An offline motorway in conjunction with prioritising public transport and local access on the existing road would arguably achieve all of them.
We're being asked to make meaningful submissions to help WCC etc choose which of the four proposed options they should go with, in order to achieve the objectives they have specified.
People making submissions saying "Nonsense, invest the money in the railway instead" are wasting their time.
They might as well be saying give us all a helicopter.0 -
The debate about east coast rail capacity is a separate issue, although undoubtedly an increase in train users would have a positive effect on the N11.
But how many of the scheme specific objectives to this proposed project would an increase in the rail capacity achieve:
From the Project Brief at https://n11m11.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PAG-Unit-3.0-Project-Brief-V3.pdf :-
Even if you had the best rail system upgrade imaginable how many of the above objectives would that achieve?
I've italicised the ones I think would be achieved. In other words, very few of them. An offline motorway in conjunction with prioritising public transport and local access on the existing road would arguably achieve all of them.
Which ones would it? I've coloured them red. Mind, you I am NOT against building a motorway to increase road safety in the area and get long distance and heavy traffic out of the village. But improving public transportation should be the priority here.
ECONOMY
Improve the efficiency of the N11/M11 corridor between Junction 4 and Junction 14 Fewer commuters on the road, so more space for lorries and long distance traffic.
Improve efficiency, reliability and journey times within European Route 1 (E01)
Fewer commuters on the road, so more space for lorries and long distance traffic.
Improve connectivity with the wider European market by reliability of journey time between ports and ease of movement Fewer commuters = more space for lorries, as well as more possibilities for freight trains on the railway line and more passenger trains to Rosslare Europort.
Improve resilience of the Irish market by improving connectivity to Rosslare Europort and the wider European market
Fewer commuters = more space for lorries, as well as more possibilities for freight trains on the railway line and more passenger trains to Rosslare Europort.
Generate positive economic benefits to road users:
Reducing journey times; and Trains could be sped up by several orders of magnitude getting people from country wicklow into Dublin much quicker. Even remaining road users will face less congestion and thus better journey times.
Improving journey time reliability.
Fewer train delays due to lack of capacity on the railway line, and less congestion on the road due to less commuters.
SAFETY
• To reduce the frequency and severity of collisions on the M11/N11
corridor between Junction 4 and Junction 14; and
• To support the Government’s Road Safety Strategy.
ENVIRONMENT
To reduce CO2 emissions and particulate emissions through a
reduction in fuel consumption; and Especially if the railway will be electrified but even without.
• To manage noise impacts in populated areas.
Fewer commuters on the road is less noise
• To minimise the impact on designated Natura 2000 sites
railway doesnt run through the Glen
• To seek to preserve existing well established communities
ACCESSIBILITY & INCLUSION
• To provide a corridor that will encourage and support investment and
employment in the wider area; Just look at the current developments in Greystones. All of wicklow is going to be booming with a proper train line.
• To improve road based public transport journey time and journey time
reliability; and
• To achieve the objective of national, regional and local planning policy.
INTEGRATION
To improve connectivity to the national road network;
• To provide continuity of road type between Junction 6 and Junction 15;
• To improve connectivity to Rosslare Europort;
Freight and passenger trains
• To be compatible with adopted land use objectives; and
• To complement wider government policy
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Promoting walking and cycling by providing a safer environment for nonmotorised road users0 -
Advertisement
-
Which ones would it? I've coloured them red. Mind, you I am NOT against building a motorway to increase road safety in the area and get long distance and heavy traffic out of the village. But improving public transportation should be the priority here.
ECONOMY
Improve the efficiency of the N11/M11 corridor between Junction 4 and Junction 14 Fewer commuters on the road, so more space for lorries and long distance traffic.
Improve efficiency, reliability and journey times within European Route 1 (E01)
Fewer commuters on the road, so more space for lorries and long distance traffic.
Improve connectivity with the wider European market by reliability of journey time between ports and ease of movement Fewer commuters = more space for lorries, as well as more possibilities for freight trains on the railway line and more passenger trains to Rosslare Europort.
Improve resilience of the Irish market by improving connectivity to Rosslare Europort and the wider European market
Fewer commuters = more space for lorries, as well as more possibilities for freight trains on the railway line and more passenger trains to Rosslare Europort.
Generate positive economic benefits to road users:
Reducing journey times; and Trains could be sped up by several orders of magnitude getting people from country wicklow into Dublin much quicker. Even remaining road users will face less congestion and thus better journey times.
Improving journey time reliability.
Fewer train delays due to lack of capacity on the railway line, and less congestion on the road due to less commuters.
SAFETY
• To reduce the frequency and severity of collisions on the M11/N11
corridor between Junction 4 and Junction 14; and
• To support the Government’s Road Safety Strategy.
ENVIRONMENT
To reduce CO2 emissions and particulate emissions through a
reduction in fuel consumption; and Especially if the railway will be electrified but even without.
• To manage noise impacts in populated areas.
Fewer commuters on the road is less noise
• To minimise the impact on designated Natura 2000 sites
railway doesnt run through the Glen
• To seek to preserve existing well established communities
ACCESSIBILITY & INCLUSION
• To provide a corridor that will encourage and support investment and
employment in the wider area; Just look at the current developments in Greystones. All of wicklow is going to be booming with a proper train line.
• To improve road based public transport journey time and journey time
reliability; and
• To achieve the objective of national, regional and local planning policy.
INTEGRATION
To improve connectivity to the national road network;
• To provide continuity of road type between Junction 6 and Junction 15;
• To improve connectivity to Rosslare Europort;
Freight and passenger trains
• To be compatible with adopted land use objectives; and
• To complement wider government policy
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Promoting walking and cycling by providing a safer environment for nonmotorised road users
Fair enough but I would argue that all those objectives are better served by a motorway and we could go round in circles on that question all day, ending up further away from the questions asked! Eg most of those objectives could actually be achieved with a 1000% increase in property tax on North Wicklow!
The main point of my post is that every submission WCC receives that does not answer the question "what should we do about these 4 corridor options?" is a wasted one.
I know for the purposes of a debate on a discussion forum you could argue it is a valid answer to say "do nothing on the routes you have suggested, build something else over here".
But for the purposes of ensuring your submission is considered by WCC surely it is a waste of time?0
Advertisement