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

loyatemu

jvan wrote: »

As far as I know this northern access route would link up from Blacklion/Redford to Glenview flyover, so again wouldn't be near the slopes of the Little Sugarloaf.

actually there's no confirmed route for this proposed NAR; just a line in the local area development plan:

WicklowCoCo wrote:

Reserve a land corridor to provide for a new road from the R761 at Sea View to
lands within AP1:Coolagad Action Plan. The new road shall provide local access to
zoned lands within the lifetime of the plan and shall, subject to feasibility, need and
design, in the long term provide a northern access route from Greystones to the N11.

spacetweek

Seems like a very useful new route to me.

marno21

Report due on this shortly from TII. Upgrade definately warranted from report

http://www.thejournal.ie/n11-traffic-congestion-3120201-Dec2016/

Idbatterim

just read the article, nothing will be built for years anyway.

they think adding more lanes, that will just get choked with more traffic is the solution? how about the luas to bray, construct park and rides etc? at this stage, anything road based in the GDA should be cancelled and the money funnelled into rail...

are there any more expensive jokes planned like the gort to turm motorway or enniscorty bypass? Anything road based that isnt the galways bypass or cork - limerick motorway, should be put on hold immediately!

marno21

Idbatterim wrote: »

just read the article, nothing will be built for years anyway.

they think adding more lanes, that will just get choked with more traffic is the solution? how about the luas to bray, construct park and rides etc? at this stage, anything road based in the GDA should be cancelled and the money funnelled into rail...

are there any more expensive jokes planned like the gort to turm motorway or enniscorty bypass? Anything road based that isnt the galways bypass or cork - limerick motorway, should be put on hold immediately!

This is what I say too.

Political focus is on upgrading arterial routes in Dublin, all feeding into the M50 which can't be upgraded, and the main rail discussion in political circles is Athenry-Claremorris.

??????

N11 does need to be sorted from Bray to Coyne's Cross, safety issues and all the accesses need closing, but it should be done after there's a green line extension for starters.

Chris_5339762

I'd agree but I'd add my pet project which is a bridge at Palmerston for the N4. Won't make too much of a different inbound but outbound it would benefit everybody.

Luas and P&R sites would help here. Interesting that the congestion is still there even though Bray and Greystones are very well served by rail already.

marno21

Deedsie wrote: »

I would agree with you with the exception of the Merrion gates upgrade. That needs to be built and it benefits, motor, rail, cyclist, pedestrian and some residents. It will also improve traffic around Vincent's hospital which is important.

Merrion Gates definately needs to be done. It'll be very beneficial and won't lead to a massive increase in traffic.

Upgrades on the M1, N2, N3, N4, N7 and N11 however will just add to the existing mess. Lots of rail upgrades will solve the problems there, widening is just kicking the can down the road.

marno21

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I'd agree but I'd add my pet project which is a bridge at Palmerston for the N4. Won't make too much of a different inbound but outbound it would benefit everybody.

Luas and P&R sites would help here. Interesting that the congestion is still there even though Bray and Greystones are very well served by rail already.

Very poorly served unless going to the city centre/along the DART line. No access to Sandyford/Ballymount etc without going in and back out

lucernarian

If we want to talk about ridiculous projects, it's the 8k planned to be spent on every person in Galway for their glorified relief road.

I'd prefer to see dualling of bray to greystones train line,right up to the mouths of the tunnel, which would allow for DARTs from Greystones every 20 minutes. Would be cheaper than Cherry wood to Bray LUAS too (I suspect).

This scheme is a good idea but I'd only worry about 3 lanes on the M11 between the M50 and the next junction south.

MichealD

Idbatterim wrote: »

just read the article, nothing will be built for years anyway.

they think adding more lanes, that will just get choked with more traffic is the solution? how about the luas to bray, construct park and rides etc? at this stage, anything road based in the GDA should be cancelled and the money funnelled into rail...

are there any more expensive jokes planned like the gort to turm motorway or enniscorty bypass? Anything road based that isnt the galways bypass or cork - limerick motorway, should be put on hold immediately!

The 'expensive joke' bypassing Enniscorthy will remove the majority of the daily 15000 vehicles ( 2016 AADT https://www.nratrafficdata.ie/c2/gmapbasic.asp?sgid=ZvyVmXU8jBt9PJE$c7UXt6 ) including a high volume of HGV traffic from Rosslare from a single carriage way road crossing two bridges in a town centre urban setting containing multiple pedestrian & traffic light controlled crossings, roundabouts and bus stops which results in delays of up to an hour to travel 1.5km from north to south of the town at peak times.

Incidentally this single carriageway section of the N11 has a higher traffic count than any count on the Cork-Limerick road past the Blarney counter (which is dual carriageway if I remember correctly).

There are many projects in need of investment accross the country but as a shovel ready project the commencement of this particular one this year will be welcomed by many.

I will agree with the comment on rail investment (or lack of). We have trains leaving Rosslare for Dublin 20 minutes before ferries arrive and a travel time by rail from Enniscorthy to Connolly of nearly two and half hours to cover 115kms.

(Apologies for going off topic)

loyatemu

The train line south of Bray has quite limited capacity - even doubling the section between Greystones station and the first tunnel would be very expensive (there's a cutting through rock just north of the station). But you'd still have a long single line section to work around, and as we've see with the PPT mess, IR don't do complex train operations well. If they could stable a couple of trains in Greystones overnight (or run them out early morning) they could run a 15 minute service between 7.30 and 8.30 which is when it's needed. I'm not sure there's enough sidings capacity though, & they may not have enough trains either.

There are a lot of buses using the N11 from Wicklow and Arklow, but they're getting snarled up in traffic which now stretches from the M50 merge back beyond NewtownMK every morning. Converting the hard shoulder into a buslane would be a cheap and quick solution to moving more people from Wicklow on public transport.

Idbatterim

good point about the bus lane if it can be done... We need to get people out of cars and give them a reason to get out of them! i.e. reducing journey time! Like I said, at this stage, with a third world rail system, I wouldnt be putting any more cash into roads in the GDA. In the short term, put in more bus lanes where feasible, in the medium term, rail is the only solution...

onrail

loyatemu wrote: »

Converting the hard shoulder into a buslane would be a cheap and quick solution to moving more people from Wicklow on public transport.

Such a project underway in Belfast at the minute - could be a really cost effective measure

loyatemu

another option would be to stable trains in Wicklow and run extra services from there in the morning. I get the impression commuters prefer the bus from Wicklow because it is so much more frequent, and the last train back to Wicklow leaves town at 1835. South of Wicklow the train line is indirect and slow, and they can't run any trains longer than 4 carraiges due to the short platforms at Rathdrum.

loyatemu

onrail wrote: »

Such a project underway in Belfast at the minute - could be a really cost effective measure

should be considered on all the arterial routes into Dublin, people aren't going to switch onto the bus only to sit in traffic. They might as well stay in their cars.

prunudo

I can only imagine the joy of the wexford bus drivers being able to fly up the hard shoulder/bus lane at 100kph, while regular commuters are stopped in the gridlock.

loyatemu

jvan wrote: »

I can only imagine the joy of the wexford bus drivers being able to fly up the hard shoulder/bus lane at 100kph, while regular commuters are stopped in the gridlock.

apart from the regular commuters who are on the bus.

Vic_08

jvan wrote: »

I can only imagine the joy of the wexford bus drivers being able to fly up the hard shoulder/bus lane at 100kph, while regular commuters are stopped in the gridlock.

That is exactly what happens on the M1 approach to Belfast and has done for 10 years.

Driven on it countless times and it does exactly what is needed; gets public transport users past the congestion caused by private car users.

What has also helped enormously in NI is that free or cheap P+R sites have been built around all the major trunk Ulsterbus routes, many beside motorway junctions.

prunudo

While I agree in principle of the idea of a bus lane, from a safety point you'd have to have a speed limit on it. You can't have a situation where cars and people are stopped while less than 1m away a 20 ton bus travels down the hard shoulder at 100kph. My original post was more having a pop at the bus company, as a regular user of the n11 I can't be only one who has noticed the way they drive, tail gating and speeding on a daily basis.

pat ticket

MichealD wrote: »

Incidentally this single carriageway section of the N11 has a higher traffic count than any count on the Cork-Limerick road past the Blarney counter (which is dual carriageway if I remember correctly).

Actually the N20 counter at Lissavoura (The next counter after the Blarney one you referenced) has higher AADTs when you include the 2014/2015 counts, not sure what explains the sharp decrease in traffic in the 2016 figures.

Middle Man

Idbatterim wrote: »

good point about the bus lane if it can be done... We need to get people out of cars and give them a reason to get out of them! i.e. reducing journey time! Like I said, at this stage, with a third world rail system, I wouldnt be putting any more cash into roads in the GDA. In the short term, put in more bus lanes where feasible, in the medium term, rail is the only solution...

Is there any reason why a rail spur from South of Greystones to Charlesland can't be built - put in a decent P+R there with long platforms for at least 8 carriage DART trains - this might take a good few cars off the N11 beyond J11. Regarding capacity constraints between Bray and Greystones, would a passing loop in the middle make any difference?

Sam Russell

Middle Man wrote: »

Is there any reason why a rail spur from South of Greystones to Charlesland can't be built - put in a decent P+R there with long platforms for at least 8 carriage DART trains - this might take a good few cars off the N11 beyond J11. Regarding capacity constraints between Bray and Greystones, would a passing loop in the middle make any difference?

Why not build the spur at Woodbrook and come up to the R119 (Dublin Road) - plenty of room for a P&R. Could even be done with a bus transfer on a special road across the green fields to a new Woodbrook station.

prunudo

Middle Man wrote: »

Is there any reason why a rail spur from South of Greystones to Charlesland can't be built - put in a decent P+R there with long platforms for at least 8 carriage DART trains - this might take a good few cars off the N11 beyond J11. Regarding capacity constraints between Bray and Greystones, would a passing loop in the middle make any difference?

Back in the boom there was talk of this, rumours that Charlesland GC would be developed for housing etc and part of the plans would involve rerouting the train line inland.
A bigger issue I would see is the constant erosion of the coast down towards Wicklow. A new inland double trackline should be seriously looked into. Can't keep hoping for the best and trying to fix damage after winter storms.

Ps:- I know this would cost a fortune.

Middle Man

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why not build the spur at Woodbrook and come up to the R119 (Dublin Road) - plenty of room for a P&R. Could even be done with a bus transfer on a special road across the green fields to a new Woodbrook station.

A new Woodbrook station on the existing line could be served by a short stretch of road to an adjoining P+R - this I think would definitely help - this in addition to a Charlesland spur in Greystones. A line swinging east through the south of Bray with stations at locations like Newcourt, Boghall and Ballywaltrim should have been considered before Bray was expanded southwards from the 1950's - of course, railways were out of favour then and that's a huge shame - would make a huge difference to the traffic situation in the town.

prunudo

Here's a link middle man

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/developers-unveil-masterplan-for-greystones-1.996792

BigMoose

Not sure how I've missed this thread up until today. I commute from Wicklow Town to Park West and spend my life trying to avoid a 9am start in the office (so either leaving home at 7 or after 9 or work from home...). Or driving through Enniskerry when it goes wrong in the evenings.

Very pleased to see there is someone looking at options. I would think there are some quick wins around the petrol station exit in kilmac going south and the bray / enniskerry / fassaroe exits going north...

marno21

TII have published an N11/M11 needs study:

http://www.tii.ie/tii-library/strategic-planning/strategic-reports/M11_N11_Needs_Assessment_Report.pdf

http://www.tii.ie/tii-library/strategic-planning/strategic-reports/M11_N11_Needs_Assessment_Report_Appendices.pdf

Article from the Journal: http://www.thejournal.ie/m11-3357661-Apr2017/

EDIT: 3 lanes recommended north of J8 and closure of accesses recommended north of J8 as far as the motorway at J6..

loyatemu

marno21 wrote: »

TII have published an N11/M11 needs study:

http://www.tii.ie/tii-library/strategic-planning/strategic-reports/M11_N11_Needs_Assessment_Report.pdf

http://www.tii.ie/tii-library/strategic-planning/strategic-reports/M11_N11_Needs_Assessment_Report_Appendices.pdf

Article from the Journal: http://www.thejournal.ie/m11-3357661-Apr2017/

EDIT: 3 lanes recommended north of J8 and closure of accesses recommended north of J8 as far as the motorway at J6..

pretty much the same conclusions as the previous report - I look forward to the next one.

vicwatson

loyatemu wrote: »

pretty much the same conclusions as the previous report - I look forward to the next one.

^^^^^

This. Just keep paying for reports, a load of bullcrap really. Report after report.

marno21

TII to proceed with safety scheme in Kilmacanogue, focused around the southbound petrol station.

http://wicklownews.net/2017/12/welcome-progress-made-on-tackling-lethal-n11-road-safety-issue-in-kilmacanogue/

Would it not make more sense to CPO the petrol station?

L1011

Petrol stations are extremely expensive to CPO due to the huge turnover (even if low profits sometimes)

BigMoose

I would think you'd solve most problems if you start the slip for the station/exit further back and then put a big concrete block down at the petrol station along to the exit to force folk up the slip road and back on at the junction.

prunudo

marno21 wrote: »

TII to proceed with safety scheme in Kilmacanogue, focused around the southbound petrol station.

http://wicklownews.net/2017/12/welcome-progress-made-on-tackling-lethal-n11-road-safety-issue-in-kilmacanogue/

Would it not make more sense to CPO the petrol station?

I'll believe it when I see it, the slip road is very narrow as it is. Can't see a barrier, whether temporary or concrete making it easy for larger vehicles to exit the existing units and garages.

marno21

Works to have capacity on the M11/N11 increased have been included in the review of the Capital Plan.

The first work will be the above with Kilmacanogue. I believe widening at least the motorway section is in the plan down the road (J4-J6).

marno21

Stephen Donnelly raised the M11/N11 issue in the Dail today.

Aside from lines upon lines of outright spoof, the following is clear:

* The M11/N11 J4-J14 upgrade is being advanced as a major project, but as a pipeline project (no work before 2021)
* A number of safety phases will be implemented in the meantime, the first being the parallel access route at Kilmacanogue

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2018-01-17a.354

I am a fan of Donnelly's response to Ross's reply to the original question which was full of irrelevant ****.

Stephen Donnelly wrote:

Most of the answer is Civil Service boilerplate text.

marno21

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/braypeople/news/meagre-funds-for-underpressure-n11-36495394.html

Article on the lack of funding for the M11 Capacity upgrade, with only 100k for 2018 for the parallel service road at Kilmacanogue

marno21

Upgrade of the N11/M11 is being implemented as per the N11/M11 Corridor Needs Study published in 2017:

1. Construction of one way parallel access roads north of J8 Kilmacanogue. No land acquistion required and sorts out issue of direct access in the short term
2. Widening the M11 between J4 and J6 using land in median, and upgrading J6 with increased roundabout capacity and realigned slip roads.
3. Upgrade of the N11 from J6 to J8 to 3 lanes in either direction, service roads between J6 and J7, inclusive of the closure of J6a, a major upgrade of J7 and several link roads for increased network resilience.
4. Upgrade of the N11 between J8 and J14 including dealing with direct accesses where possible.

Phase 1 has been approved for implementation as a safety scheme in the short term. Phases 2-4 are being appraised as a large scheme for potential inclusion in the National Development Plan 2018-2027.

prunudo

There were guys surveying around the topaz garage heading southbound last week so hopefully phase 1 happens sooner rather than later.

Reuben1210

marno21 wrote: »

Upgrade of the N11/M11 is being implemented as per the N11/M11 Corridor Needs Study published in 2017:

1. Construction of one way parallel access roads north of J8 Kilmacanogue. No land acquistion required and sorts out issue of direct access in the short term
2. Widening the M11 between J4 and J6 using land in median, and upgrading J6 with increased roundabout capacity and realigned slip roads.
3. Upgrade of the N11 from J6 to J8 to 3 lanes in either direction, service roads between J6 and J7, inclusive of the closure of J6a, a major upgrade of J7 and several link roads for increased network resilience.
4. Upgrade of the N11 between J8 and J14 including dealing with direct accesses where possible.

Phase 1 has been approved for implementation as a safety scheme in the short term. Phases 2-4 are being appraised as a large scheme for potential inclusion in the National Development Plan 2018-2027.

Does Phase 1 entailparallel access roads all the way from J6 to J8, or just segregated slip ways for teh garages and onto the bridge at J8?

D.L.R.

Does this mean there'll be a 3 lane M11, a 3 lane M50 to Sandyford and a 2 lane M50 section in between? If so that's pretty idiotic.

prunudo

Reuben1210 wrote: »

Does Phase 1 entailparallel access roads all the way from J6 to J8, or just segregated slip ways for teh garages and onto the bridge at J8?

Afaik initially it will be only to segregate the businesses and garage from mainline traffic.
Im still unsure though how they have the space without needing additional land. Even at present if a large truck is exiting it needs to swing into the lanes of traffic to make the turn.

prunudo

D.L.R. wrote: »

Does this mean there'll be a 3 lane M11, a 3 lane M50 to Sandyford and a 2 lane M50 section in between? If so that's pretty idiotic.

I wonder were there any conditions of the planning for the new cherrywood development to allow for upgrade of the remaining m50 to 3 lanes.

Alun

jvan wrote: »

Afaik initially it will be only to segregate the businesses and garage from mainline traffic.
Im still unsure though how they have the space without needing additional land. Even at present if a large truck is exiting it needs to swing into the lanes of traffic to make the turn.

I agree, I can't see how they're going to squeeze it in either. I've been looking for some detailed drawings online but can't find anything.

spacetweek

I wonder how much of the N11 they will be able to redeclare as motorway when this is done. I reckon probably only J11 (Kilpeddar) to J14 (Coyne's Cross). North of that you have to make way too many compromises on alignment and slip lane length.

spacetweek

D.L.R. wrote: »

Does this mean there'll be a 3 lane M11, a 3 lane M50 to Sandyford and a 2 lane M50 section in between? If so that's pretty idiotic.

What 2 lane M50 section do you mean?

prunudo

spacetweek wrote: »

I wonder how much of the N11 they will be able to redeclare as motorway when this is done. I reckon probably only J11 (Kilpeddar) to J14 (Coyne's Cross). North of that you have to make way too many compromises on alignment and slip lane length.

Its a hard one to know, could be issues with the bus stops in Kilpedder and at Coynes cross too.

Regarding the 2 lane m50, i presume they are talking about the section from Loughlinstown to Sandyford.

spacetweek

jvan wrote: »

Its a hard one to know, could be issues with the bus stops in Kilpedder and at Coynes cross too.

Regarding the 2 lane m50, i presume they are talking about the section from Loughlinstown to Sandyford.

I reckon they move the bus stops and bus route onto the old road. More convenient for residents.
I thought the M50 from Bray-Sandyford was getting widened along with the Bray bypass widening. That was the plan at one stage anyway. Maybe not anymore. That section isn't used anywhere near as much as the rest of the M50 except at rush hour.

prunudo

Problem is there is no old road or alternate route southbound for the 133 to go. If they make it motorway and close the stops its only encouraging more people to use private car and abandon the bus service.
In an ideal world it be great to have it motorway but there also needs to be thought given to public transport solutions.

marno21

Reuben1210 wrote: »

Does Phase 1 entailparallel access roads all the way from J6 to J8, or just segregated slip ways for teh garages and onto the bridge at J8?

No, Phase 1 is just an upgrade at Kilmacanogue. The rest is in Phase 2 which will be more costly. Phase 2-4 are being appraised for potential inclusion in the National Development Plan.

D.L.R. wrote: »

Does this mean there'll be a 3 lane M11, a 3 lane M50 to Sandyford and a 2 lane M50 section in between? If so that's pretty idiotic.

Yes. At the M50/M11 merge you basically have 4 lanes merging together as the 2 lane M11 merges with the 2 lane M50. This is more of an issue and the primary issue up for solution at the minute.

The work being proposed is a result of the M11/N11 Needs Study which is effectively a policy document now. The M50 was outside the scope of this document.

annfield1978

Who has been appointed Marno do do Phase 1?

marno21 wrote: »

Upgrade of the N11/M11 is being implemented as per the N11/M11 Corridor Needs Study published in 2017:

1. Construction of one way parallel access roads north of J8 Kilmacanogue. No land acquistion required and sorts out issue of direct access in the short term
2. Widening the M11 between J4 and J6 using land in median, and upgrading J6 with increased roundabout capacity and realigned slip roads.
3. Upgrade of the N11 from J6 to J8 to 3 lanes in either direction, service roads between J6 and J7, inclusive of the closure of J6a, a major upgrade of J7 and several link roads for increased network resilience.
4. Upgrade of the N11 between J8 and J14 including dealing with direct accesses where possible.

Phase 1 has been approved for implementation as a safety scheme in the short term. Phases 2-4 are being appraised as a large scheme for potential inclusion in the National Development Plan 2018-2027.