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

prunudo

Regarding any possible litigation, at what stage can people take a court case? Can it be done when the preferred route is choosen or can a case only be taken after its gone through full design and been heard at an Bord Plenala oral hearing.

Pete_Cavan

Reuben1210 wrote: »

Exactly why infrastructure spending needs to be ring-fenced like in France! Takes the politics out of it...

That has nothing to do with it. The time it takes for a road to progress through the design phases, go through the motions with ABP, fight the inevitable challenges and complete procurement is longer than a government term. That is why this project isn't an issue for the next government.

josip

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

...The time it takes for a road to progress through the design phases, go through the motions with ABP, fight the inevitable challenges and complete procurement is longer than a government term...

Very interesting. I had never considered this aspect of it before.
Do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
Removing parish pump politics from national infrastructure decisions is definitely desirable.

Pete_Cavan

schmittel wrote: »

I don't think the GOTD is currently wide enough to incorporate a bus lane either side, so if they have to widen the road in the glen to add a bus lane, that will get tied up in the courts for a decade as well.

The point would be to transfer sufficient drivers onto buses such that the GOTD section stays as is. You just need to get the number of vehicles down to a level that traffic can flow. Sorting out all the junctions and accesses from there north will allow traffic to flow better along there so no knock on effects further south. There is not going to be any major increase in road capacity any time soon so the only real option is to reduce traffic to within the existing capacity.

hometruths

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The point would be to transfer sufficient drivers onto buses such that the GOTD section stays as is. You just need to get the number of vehicles down to a level that traffic can flow. Sorting out all the junctions and accesses from there north will allow traffic to flow better along there so no knock on effects further south. There is not going to be any major increase in road capacity any time soon so the only real option is to reduce traffic to within the existing capacity.

That makes sense in theory I agree, not sure how well it would work in practice.

Leaving GOTD as is means converting one lane either side (even if only for rush hour) to a bus lane. This is essentially trying to force drivers into buses by making the traffic even worse that the bus becomes the only tolerable option!

Pete_Cavan

josip wrote: »

Very interesting. I had never considered this aspect of it before.
Do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
Removing parish pump politics from national infrastructure decisions is definitely desirable.

It has nothing to do with parish pump politics. The time it takes to deliver a major road project is more driven by the legal system, everything from CPOs, planning approval and procurement is open to legal challenges for multiple reasons so everything has to be watertight and that takes time (could be done faster than we currently do things here but not overly so). Often are challenges are made on the basis of EU rules so these are not things that an Irish government can eliminate.

josip

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

It has nothing to do with parish pump politics. The time it takes to deliver a major road project is more driven by the legal system, everything from CPOs, planning approval and procurement is open to legal challenges for multiple reasons so everything has to be watertight and that takes time (could be done faster than we currently do things here but not overly so). Often are challenges are made on the basis of EU rules so these are not things that an Irish government can eliminate.

Do you really believe that the initial prioritisation of projects is currently completely independent of political influence?

Pete_Cavan

schmittel wrote: »

That makes sense in theory I agree, not sure how well it would work in practice.

Leaving GOTD as is means converting one lane either side (even if only for rush hour) to a bus lane. This is essentially trying to force drivers into buses by making the traffic even worse that the bus becomes the only tolerable option!

I think bus lanes could only be from Kilmac north. The other thing additional road capacity doesn't address the lack of capacity north of Bray. Getting more cars to already congested roads faster will only lead to longer tailbacks. Making traffic even worse is the only thing that will happen, unless you give people an alternative. Having buses using a bus lane to pass sitting traffic from Kilma north makes them a viable alternative.

hometruths

prunudo wrote: »

Regarding any possible litigation, at what stage can people take a court case? Can it be done when the preferred route is choosen or can a case only be taken after its gone through full design and been heard at an Bord Plenala oral hearing.

My understanding is that if you felt some aspect of the route selection process was flawed you could apply for leave to challenge it in a judicial review as soon as the route is announced.

Assuming they choose the red route involving some level of widening the Glen it could potentially pan out something like this:

Announce route selection - July 2020
Judicial Review of route selection decision - August 2020.
JR challenge defeated in High Court. September 2022
Apply for leave to Supreme Court re JR - October 2022
Supreme Court challenge defeated - October 2024
Submit planning application to ABP - April 2025
ABP Oral Hearing - March 2026
ABP grant approval - September 2026
Judicial Review of ABP decision - October 2026
JR defeated in High Court - October 2028
Apply for leave to Supreme Court re JR - November 2028
Supreme Court challenge defeated - November 2030
Apply to ECJ for opinion on Supreme Court rulings of EU Directives - December 2030.
ECJ rule that planning approval not valid under EU law - June 2031

So net result could be in June 2031 they are back at square one!

Obviously the dates I have thrown out are a bit arbitrary, but those are the steps as I understand the process. If anything the timescale might be conservative, as grinding through the courts could take a lot longer!

josip

If the GOTD has the worst congestion on the N11, then there is very little point in doing works on any other part until that is addressed.
In any throughput-based system, you must resolve the bottlenecks first.

Pete_Cavan

josip wrote: »

Do you really believe that the initial prioritisation of projects is currently completely independent of political influence?

Well the Galway bypass has been a priority for more than a decade, has had one design thrown out on environmental grounds after years of work and the current design is stuck in the planning approval process with challenges of an approval inevitable. This is in store for any project for any project that proposes to build another 2+2 through north Wicklow or widen the existing road through GOTD.

It still doesn't changethe fact that we are where we are and we need to find solutions now. Had they prioritised public transport earlier, things wouldn't be so bad now. Hopefully we won't make the same mistake again.

prunudo

Thanks Schmittel, wasn't sure at what stage someone could bring it to court.

And for the record I have no intention of taking it to court, was just curious on likely time frames should someone wish to do so.

Pete_Cavan

josip wrote: »

If the GOTD has the worst congestion on the N11, then there is very little point in doing works on any other part until that is addressed.
In any throughput-based system, you must resolve the bottlenecks first.

If a good percentage of those drivers were instead on buses, such that that section of road was within its operating capacity, wouldn't that address the problem?

prunudo

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If a good percentage of those drivers were instead on buses, such that that section of road was within its operating capacity, wouldn't that address the problem?

Seemingly there's a new 133 timetable coming out in March with additional services so we'll see if that makes a difference.

hometruths

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I think bus lanes could only be from Kilmac north. The other thing additional road capacity doesn't address the lack of capacity north of Bray. Getting more cars to already congested roads faster will only lead to longer tailbacks. Making traffic even worse is the only thing that will happen, unless you give people an alternative. Having buses using a bus lane to pass sitting traffic from Kilma north makes them a viable alternative.

As a lot of the traffic is coming from Wexford and South Wicklow, the scheme is to address problems north of Coynes Cross.

Adding a bus lane north of Kilmac means people will need somewhere in that region to park their cars, and still use the N11 to get that point in Kilmac hence no difference to the problems between Coynes Cross and Kilmac - could even make that stretch worse!

So whilst bus lanes north of Kilmac might be a good idea in general, as a solution to the problems identified in this particular scheme it is not enough.

hometruths

prunudo wrote: »

Thanks Schmittel, wasn't sure at what stage someone could bring it to court.

And for the record I have no intention of taking it to court, was just curious on likely time frames should someone wish to do so.

Guaranteed!

u140acro3xs7dm

prunudo wrote: »

Seemingly there's a new 133 timetable coming out in March with additional services so we'll see if that makes a difference.

Is the timetable really the problem? Maybe sticking to the current timetable might be a start, and actually showing up. Wexford Bus already go the most direct route possible, so I don't see what a new timetable will achieve.

The busses are stuck in this congestion too, and will be until an alternative is put in place. I know that more people on public transport will reduce congestion, but getting people to change from car to bus will take years. It needs to be cheaper and quicker than driving, and a pleasant experience.

If i decide to get a bus home this evening, I've to walk 10 minutes to a bus stop, then stand there in the rain with no bus shelter. Usually WB will show up in 5 or 10 mins, but I have been waiting for 40 before. It will take over an hour to get to destination stop, then walk 20 minutes home.

The alternative is walking outside, jump in the car, and it will take about 80 mins home. I won't get wet, I won't have a stranger beside me, nudging me, and taking up more than their share of space, and if I see traffic, I can take an alternative route.

Ive tried the 133, Wexford Bus, train, and driving to the DART and LUAS, but driving point to point wins hands down.

hometruths

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

That has nothing to do with it. The time it takes for a road to progress through the design phases, go through the motions with ABP, fight the inevitable challenges and complete procurement is longer than a government term. That is why this project isn't an issue for the next government.

On a more local note how are the route selection and design phases impacted by the timings of the change in the Wicklow Development Plan?

The current plan is 2016 - 2022 so presumably the route selection process has to bear that in mind if they are making the decision this year.

But it is due to be renewed next year and WCC have started the process, taking submissions etc etc for a new 2021 - 2027 plan, which presumably will come into effect late next year.

The draft timelines say they intend to make a submission to ABP in Q2 2021.

It presumably would make more sense to have it aligned with the 2021 - 2027 plan, but does that mean they have to wait until after the plan comes into effect to submit application to ABP?

prunudo

Whats the bets the development plan will be about rezoning land for building with no provision for rail, bus or other transport corridors.

spacetweek

prunudo wrote: »

no provision for rail, bus or other transport corridors.

Those are provided by the NTA not county councils. Not saying I agree with it, just saying.

hometruths

recyclops wrote: »

They should get round to cleaning up the ropes, plastic and camps they left behind from the last protest before starting another.

There’s not seriously still remnants of the last protest surely?

punisher5112

schmittel wrote: »

There’s not seriously still remnants of the last protest surely?

You couldn't expect them to clean up after themselves....


One guy still lives there, saying that it's 2 years since I seen him last.

punisher5112

Just looked up the original protest and it's comical the amount of hippies there.

None looked like they ever worked but are the type to tag etc and do dope by the looks of it.

Imagine how much safer and less congested it would be if they built it right the 1st time.

Hard shoulder is basically not even that safe for a cyclist and a car broken down won't fit in it....

Great job there tree huggers as if you think about it Yee actually caused more environmentally damaging issues by having vehicles bumper to bumper going nowhere creating more pollution.

If more jobs were created or even moved out of Dublin city this could drastically change the problems as could more and more working from home when better broadband is available.

Staggered working hours too could help as 9 to 5 is a scourge on the commutes.

prunudo

schmittel wrote: »

There’s not seriously still remnants of the last protest surely?

Don't think there's any treehouses left but plenty of trees still have ropes in them.

sideswipe

punisher5112 wrote: »

Just looked up the original protest and it's comical the amount of hippies there.

None looked like they ever worked but are the type to tag etc and do dope by the looks of it.

Imagine how much safer and less congested it would be if they built it right the 1st time.

Hard shoulder is basically not even that safe for a cyclist and a car broken down won't fit in it....

Great job there tree huggers as if you think about it Yee actually caused more environmentally damaging issues by having vehicles bumper to bumper .

I know 2 that spent a lot of time in those trees......,they are now stuck in traffic trying get back home from their office jobs to collect the kids from childminders:)

spacetweek

Yikes.... lot of cynics here. The idea that the protesters did more damage than the cars is laughable. Those ropes you see aren't harming the trees at all.
I agreed with the GOTD road being widened, but I see it as part of the environmental cost of having cities. It just can't be avoided.

sideswipe

spacetweek wrote: »

Yikes.... lot of cynics here. The idea that the protesters did more damage than the cars is laughable. Those ropes you see aren't harming the trees at all.
I agreed with the GOTD road being widened, but I see it as part of the environmental cost of having cities. It just can't be avoided.

I think the poster who mentioned damage done was referring to the fact they stopped the road being done effectively and properly with the protest and now traffic is stopped or moving slowly causing extra carbon omissions.

Don't think anybody was suggesting the ropes were hurting the trees :pac:

punisher5112

sideswipe wrote: »

I think the poster who mentioned damage done was referring to the fact they stopped the road being done effectively and properly with the protest and now traffic is stopped or moving slowly causing extra carbon omissions.

Don't think anybody was suggesting the ropes were hurting the trees :pac:

Bang on.....

listermint

Kian Fast Photography wrote: »

Is the timetable really the problem? Maybe sticking to the current timetable might be a start, and actually showing up. Wexford Bus already go the most direct route possible, so I don't see what a new timetable will achieve.

The busses are stuck in this congestion too, and will be until an alternative is put in place. I know that more people on public transport will reduce congestion, but getting people to change from car to bus will take years. It needs to be cheaper and quicker than driving, and a pleasant experience.

If i decide to get a bus home this evening, I've to walk 10 minutes to a bus stop, then stand there in the rain with no bus shelter. Usually WB will show up in 5 or 10 mins, but I have been waiting for 40 before. It will take over an hour to get to destination stop, then walk 20 minutes home.

The alternative is walking outside, jump in the car, and it will take about 80 mins home. I won't get wet, I won't have a stranger beside me, nudging me, and taking up more than their share of space, and if I see traffic, I can take an alternative route.

Ive tried the 133, Wexford Bus, train, and driving to the DART and LUAS, but driving point to point wins hands down.

This is core to the problem. Public has to be easier.


Let's say for example you could drive to a free parking location on the edge of the larger towns in Wicklow. And wait in the car or sit at a sheltered closed off mini depo with bus countdown timer on it.

Would you take that option.

Because for my money it would be an absolute minor investment to dot such things up and down the country in comparison to the hundreds of millions lost on traffic jam delays and accidents.

punisher5112

Look at all the US states where they actually had highway running through or around cities but not only that they were on stilts.....

Now they are in a few removing these as I will agree they look terrible but they worked but now are going under ground.

This is something that really needs to be thought about and especially major pinch points.

Imagine bray, kilmac and the glen all bypassed under ground....

No impact to the surrounding areas or more trees lost.

Yes yes I know cost but still how can other countries pull it off.