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

Steve012

prunudo wrote: »

I was sure they had already done an environmental survey last year. Definitely was talking to someone who said they were doing a survey on behave of Arup.

Yes I was told by Arup July 2020 that they had nearly done the environmental studies

SeanW

If the plan is to go with widening the existing route, will the upgrade make it a motorway? From my limited experience using the N/M11, it always seemed like 2 lanes each way for general traffic is about right, but that the main problem is a sketchy dual carriageway making a weird Cumberland Gap between two sections of M11.

punisher5112

SeanW wrote: »

If the plan is to go with widening the existing route, will the upgrade make it a motorway? From my limited experience using the N/M11, it always seemed like 2 lanes each way for general traffic is about right, but that the main problem is a sketchy dual carriageway making a weird Cumberland Gap between two sections of M11.

From what I gather it's to be M all the way. That would be the only real reason for these works and the necessary closures of exits and entrances onto the road as is.

Look at the car park at GOTD, garden centre etc.

hometruths

SeanW wrote: »

If the plan is to go with widening the existing route, will the upgrade make it a motorway? From my limited experience using the N/M11, it always seemed like 2 lanes each way for general traffic is about right, but that the main problem is a sketchy dual carriageway making a weird Cumberland Gap between two sections of M11.

I think that's the billion dollar question.

Do they go with the widening the existing route, make traffic flow better and safe but accept that they will not be able to obtain motorway spec through the Glen - the Cumberland Gap.

Or do they go for a continuous motorway and accept that they face an engineering challenge through virgin countryside.

Between a rock and a hard place is particularly apt in this case!

punisher5112

schmittel wrote: »

I think that's the billion dollar question.

Do they go with the widening the existing route, make traffic flow better and safe but accept that they will not be able to obtain motorway spec through the Glen - the Cumberland Gap.

Or do they go for a continuous motorway and accept that they face an engineering challenge through virgin countryside.

Between a rock and a hard place is particularly apt in this case!

I doubt they will run into the tree huggers like before, the cost of these people really is how we are where we are now....

hometruths

punisher5112 wrote: »

I doubt they will run into the tree huggers like before, the cost of these people really is how we are where we are now....

The won't run into them like before I agree. The tree huggers are a lot more powerful nowadays. And this time EU law explicitly backs them up.

marno21

schmittel wrote: »

The won't run into them like before I agree. The tree huggers are a lot more powerful nowadays. And this time EU law explicitly backs them up.

There’s also the matter of the Minister for Transport being one.....

punisher5112

marno21 wrote: »

There’s also the matter of the Minister for Transport being one.....

Yes if he has his way it won't happen but I honestly don't think he has enough backing.

He wants us all walking or cycling or having a car share or grow veg in a window box.

He is for the birds

hometruths

marno21 wrote: »

There’s also the matter of the Minister for Transport being one.....

Yes, who claims to have been hanging out of those very same trees in the Glen to stop the road widening in the 90s!

He cannot back widening the road through the Glen.

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

There’s also the matter of the Minister for Transport being one.....

But he would be against the motorway option.

Ireland trains

Would converting the hard shoulders into bus lanes for peak times along with a major park and ride north of wicklow and a bus distribution hub near bray/cherrywood (possibly brides glen) not be a much cheaper option?

The project is estimated at one billion euro which is likley to rise. The eco warriors claimed that widening the glen of the downs in the 90s-00s would result us being back in the same place in 20 years time and they were absoloutly right.
While a case can be made for a handful of interurban motorway projects such as the m20 the same cannot be said for the billions we will be pouring in to widening 'commuter' motorways.
Also additional capacity on the rail line can be accommodated without major investment. Trains are usually 3-4 coaches, infrequent so just longer trains and more of them are required

Steve012

SeanW wrote: »

If the plan is to go with widening the existing route, will the upgrade make it a motorway? From my limited experience using the N/M11, it always seemed like 2 lanes each way for general traffic is about right, but that the main problem is a sketchy dual carriageway making a weird Cumberland Gap between two sections of M11.

Plan is : A freeway, a free flow road from the north to Rosslare 3 lanes each side + a Express bus lane.

That's the long and short of the idea.

marno21

Where did the 1 billion price tag come from?

BelfastVanMan

Steve012 wrote: »

Plan is : A freeway, a free flow road from the north to Rosslare 3 lanes each side + a Express bus lane.

That's the long and short of the idea.

It REALLY isn't.

punisher5112

Ireland trains wrote: »

Would converting the hard shoulders into bus lanes for peak times along with a major park and ride north of wicklow and a bus distribution hub near bray/cherrywood (possibly brides glen) not be a much cheaper option?

The project is estimated at one billion euro which is likley to rise. The eco warriors claimed that widening the glen of the downs in the 90s-00s would result us being back in the same place in 20 years time and they were absoloutly right.
While a case can be made for a handful of interurban motorway projects such as the m20 the same cannot be said for the billions we will be pouring in to widening 'commuter' motorways.
Also additional capacity on the rail line can be accommodated without major investment. Trains are usually 3-4 coaches, infrequent so just longer trains and more of them are required

Thanks to the tree huggers the hard shoulder isn't even wide enough to take a car at GOTD.

If they had built the road to proper spec they could at least have done the bus lanes which would greatly improve PT.

One thing I really don't get is kilmac and it's surrounding parts where buildings and homes were actually given permission to be built right out to the existing roads, leaving little to no space to ever widen.

The works been carried out there now will of course be a huge improvement but this was something that should have been in place when it was built anyway, now with these improvements thats it, no scope for anything else if ever needed.

punisher5112

Steve012 wrote: »

Plan is : A freeway, a free flow road from the north to Rosslare 3 lanes each side + a Express bus lane.

That's the long and short of the idea.

It's just to get the road to M status to coynes cross where it will then be M from Dublin all the way, now if that actually happens that's a different story.....

As soon as you clear GOTD or even kilmac heading South traffic isn't an issue unless there is an incident.

Bray area is a major cause of congestion with so many exits and entrances and not enough road space.

Pete_Cavan

punisher5112 wrote: »

From what I gather it's to be M all the way. That would be the only real reason for these works and the necessary closures of exits and entrances onto the road as is.

Look at the car park at GOTD, garden centre etc.

Closing entrances and formalising junctions is required for safety and capacity reasons whether the road becomes motorway or not.

Macy0161

Ireland trains wrote: »

Would converting the hard shoulders into bus lanes for peak times along with a major park and ride north of wicklow and a bus distribution hub near bray/cherrywood (possibly brides glen) not be a much cheaper option?

People get out of their single occupancy cars? I've never heard such madness!

Obviously building new or wider roads isn't the solution, but as a population we're blind to that.

KrisW1001

That's all fine, but it doesn't solve the need for a safe, efficient corridor for road freight, which will be much more evident as continental transport shifts from the UK land-bridge and Dublin Port to direct sailings into Rosslare.

The current N11 is a dog's dinner - too narrow to add bus-lanes, too many junctions for efficient (and lower emission) travel, too many on-road developments. It's basically a local road, but for lack of any alternatives, it has to function as a long-distance national route too.

I know the tunnel option is prohibitively expensive, but I think it's the only one that has a positive impact on everyone (except the exchequer, of course...). The current N11 can get a proper dedicated public transport corridor, a toll-for-cars tunnel like M50 is can keep lorries out of the Glen, and in combination with reducing the existing road to bus+bus plus single carriageway plus cycleways will still discourage increased car commuting. Also, by going under properties, through what is mostly granite, removes the problems of CPO and loss of woodland.

It's a shame it's multiple times the cost of the alternatives, really... of all the options, it's the only one that would come close to the imaginary "billion euros" figure that people are bandying about.

josip

As regards the loss of woodland, why don't they

1. CPO some of the farmland either side of the N11 and adjacent to the current woodland.
2. Play the long game and plant it with the same "stuff" that's in the current woodland,
3. build a couple of wildlife bridges like these,

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/23/how-wildlife-crossings-are-helping-reindeer-bears-and-even-crabs-aoe

and widen the N11 to 3 lane motorway?

It'd be much cheaper than a tunnel and the woodland cover could increase without the massive costs of an alternative route/tunnel.

punisher5112

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Closing entrances and formalising junctions is required for safety and capacity reasons whether the road becomes motorway or not.

Yes but this isn't happening, it's left like it is the last 22-23 years.....

It will be happening in these changes to motorway though, well that's obviously the plan.

hometruths

KrisW1001 wrote: »

That's all fine, but it doesn't solve the need for a safe, efficient corridor for road freight, which will be much more evident as continental transport shifts from the UK land-bridge and Dublin Port to direct sailings into Rosslare.

The current N11 is a dog's dinner - too narrow to add bus-lanes, too many junctions for efficient (and lower emission) travel, too many on-road developments. It's basically a local road, but for lack of any alternatives, it has to function as a long-distance national route too.

I know the tunnel option is prohibitively expensive, but I think it's the only one that has a positive impact on everyone (except the exchequer, of course...). The current N11 can get a proper dedicated public transport corridor, a toll-for-cars tunnel like M50 is can keep lorries out of the Glen, and in combination with reducing the existing road to bus+bus plus single carriageway plus cycleways will still discourage increased car commuting. Also, by going under properties, through what is mostly granite, removes the problems of CPO and loss of woodland.

It's a shame it's multiple times the cost of the alternatives, really... of all the options, it's the only one that would come close to the imaginary "billion euros" figure that people are bandying about.

I think the tunnel is a crazy idea because of the problems building it whilst trying to keep the corridor open for traffic at the same time. I'm assuming it's a pretty major engineering project and not likely to be possible to happily work away without huge problems.

punisher5112

schmittel wrote: »

I think the tunnel is a crazy idea because of the problems building it whilst trying to keep the corridor open for traffic at the same time. I'm assuming it's a pretty major engineering project and not likely to be possible to happily work away without huge problems.

The only way it could work is if it were off to the side where works could then be done up until changeover.

I don't see that happening.

Pete_Cavan

punisher5112 wrote: »

Yes but this isn't happening, it's left like it is the last 22-23 years.....

It will be happening in these changes to motorway though, well that's obviously the plan.

There is nothing obvious to state that the current plan is to create a motorway standard road. The existing road can be upgraded with entrances closed and junctions formalised without creating a motorway, that would seem a more likely plan based on local chatter reported here plus the current Transport Ministers aversion to new road building, and doubly so in this particular area.

prunudo

josip wrote: »

As regards the loss of woodland, why don't they

1. CPO some of the farmland either side of the N11 and adjacent to the current woodland.
2. Play the long game and plant it with the same "stuff" that's in the current woodland,
3. build a couple of wildlife bridges like these,

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/23/how-wildlife-crossings-are-helping-reindeer-bears-and-even-crabs-aoe

and widen the N11 to 3 lane motorway?

It'd be much cheaper than a tunnel and the woodland cover could increase without the massive costs of an alternative route/tunnel.

They could also look at repositioning the car park on a greenfield site to the north of the current woods. This could be accessed directly from junction 9 and would resolve the issue of the dangerous access to the current car park.

hometruths

josip wrote: »

As regards the loss of woodland, why don't they

1. CPO some of the farmland either side of the N11 and adjacent to the current woodland.
2. Play the long game and plant it with the same "stuff" that's in the current woodland,
3. build a couple of wildlife bridges like these,

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/23/how-wildlife-crossings-are-helping-reindeer-bears-and-even-crabs-aoe

and widen the N11 to 3 lane motorway?

It'd be much cheaper than a tunnel and the woodland cover could increase without the massive costs of an alternative route/tunnel.

The "stuff" that is in the current woodland is protected by European law precisely because it is ancient, nothing to do with the area of cover. Replanting with new "stuff" is not going to cut it.

KrisW1001

punisher5112 wrote: »

The only way it could work is if it were off to the side where works could then be done up until changeover.

I don't see that happening.

The tunnelled route option is a good distance to the west of the current N11.

hometruths

KrisW1001 wrote: »

The tunnelled route option is a good distance to the west of the current N11.

Have you seen a map? I was of the understanding it was pretty close to being directly beneath the existing N11.

KrisW1001

https://n11m11.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Public-Consultation-Interim-Update-DEC-2020-For-Publishing.pdf

A tunnel was proposed between two points on the existing road, but that does not mean a tunnel will go directly under the road - that idea is down to journalists failing at reading comprehension again. I suspect it would go to the west, between the current road and the Cyan option, which has also proceeded to the next phase. Looking at the Cyan option to the West of the Glen, it is either going to need very deep cuttings or some tunnelled sections too.

The entry and exit points of the proposed tunnel (just northeast of J11, and just north of J9) have enough space around them to facilitate construction - especially the southern portal. The only disruption to traffic would be right at the end of the project, to tie in the new and old routes.

hometruths

KrisW1001 wrote: »

https://n11m11.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Public-Consultation-Interim-Update-DEC-2020-For-Publishing.pdf

A tunnel was proposed between two points on the existing road, but that does not mean a tunnel will go directly under the road - that idea is down to journalists failing at reading comprehension again. I suspect it would go to the west, between the current road and the Cyan option, which has also proceeded to the next phase. Looking at the Cyan option to the West of the Glen, it is either going to need very deep cuttings or some tunnelled sections too.

I’m with the journalists failing at reading comprehension here. Tunnel presumably would take shortest route between x and y, much of which is pretty close to the line of the existing road.

I suspect the tunnel s pretty irrelevant anyway, as it’s all window dressing.