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

marno21

annfield1978 wrote: »

Who has been appointed Marno do do Phase 1?

Was a tender issued at all? Can't find one after looking there.

Kildare RDO were to appoint consultants for the initial stages before Christmas but I haven't heard anything since.

prunudo

marno21 wrote: »

Was a tender issued at all? Can't find one after looking there.

Kildare RDO were to appoint consultants for the initial stages before Christmas but I haven't heard anything since.

What is RDO? How come it would be Kildare and not Wicklow?

Carawaystick

Alun wrote: »

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.

I saw a drawing showing the exit from the petrol station being to the left of the shop building onto a new (CPO'ed) lane to here

D Trent

jvan wrote: »

What is RDO? How come it would be Kildare and not Wicklow?

Roads Design Office I would imagine ....

L1011

Only a subset of counties have an RDO. Kildare have designed schemes well outside county boundaries before and seem to specialise in motorways - the county has no single carriageway national primaries left which does give some justification there.

marno21

Kildare RDO (Roads Design Office - for national road designs) are also in charge of the big ticket N81 scheme so seem to be taking care of Wicklow's upgrades.

loyatemu

Carawaystick wrote: »

I saw a drawing showing the exit from the petrol station being to the left of the shop building onto a new (CPO'ed) lane to here

it makes sense to send traffic back to the N11 via the J8 roundabout, but there's a lot of buildings, gardens etc in between.

prunudo

loyatemu wrote: »

it makes sense to send traffic back to the N11 via the J8 roundabout, but there's a lot of buildings, gardens etc in between.

Very true, as it is, if the traffic is heavy I'd often go up to roundabout and join the far side of bridge.

prunudo

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1732640690126651&id=100001422100962

Thud

so similar to the Lucan N4 exit
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3589183,-6.416171,3a,90y,279.48h,88.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGZNlU3S2siYSTthLdhVtBg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Chris_5339762

A significant factor in contributing to traffic jams on this route near the Bray North exit is the 'shock wave' affect of the sudden speed drop from 120kph to 60kph just after Bray South.

There is so much wrong with that.

a) its not true. What causes most of the problems is the capacity south of Bray north, the disimprovement of the alignment and the weaving section.
b) It reduces from 100kph to 60kph just after Bray South.

Alun

It'll be interesting to see the detailed drawings when they're made public. Personally I can't see how they're going to squeeze an extra lane plus potentially a cycle track as well into the space available.

decky1

has anyone taken time to let those guy+girls that were up in the trees know about this, they may have to get back there on the double. there may be trees involved in this.

Pete_Cavan

I'm assuming that the new lane will be built east of the existing petrol stations and businesses, would this be correct?

prunudo

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I'm assuming that the new lane will be built east of the existing petrol stations and businesses, would this be correct?

I don't think so, my understanding is that it will be similar set up to out bound on the n4 near Lucan.

There were plans at one stage for a road running parallel to n11 joining the woodies roundabout to the copeswood aviary roundabout but it met opposition from locals.

vicwatson

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

There is so much wrong with that.

a) its not true. What causes most of the problems is the capacity south of Bray north, the disimprovement of the alignment and the weaving section.
b) It reduces from 100kph to 60kph just after Bray South.

Also a problem is the merging, people on the M11 cake it when others force merge, break hard, next car has to, and so on, ultimately sometimes bringing traffic to a standstill further up the M50

Thud

Any update on this?

marno21

Consultants to be appointed for Phases 1-4 (feasibility, option selection, design and statutory process) with tender for that to be released shortly

Reuben1210

marno21 wrote: »

Consultants to be appointed for Phases 1-4 (feasibility, option selection, design and statutory process) with tender for that to be released shortly

At the end of phase 4, does that mean a route design would be released publicly, or that only happens later after detailed route selection/design? Is there a rough timeline for these phases?:)

Chris_5339762

I've heard rumours that this scheme will go all the way to Coynes Cross, ie: completely close the N11 gap. Is that true?

prunudo

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I've heard rumours that this scheme will go all the way to Coynes Cross, ie: completely close the N11 gap. Is that true?

In time the non numbered junctions will be closed but it will never be 3 lanes beyond junction 9 Glenview. Not enough space in the Glen of the Downs.

loyatemu

jvan wrote: »

In time the non numbered junctions will be closed but it will never be 3 lanes beyond junction 9 Glenview. Not enough space in the Glen of the Downs.

I don't think the 6 lane section is going beyond J7 - further south it's just closing LILOs etc.

prunudo

loyatemu wrote: »

I don't think the 6 lane section is going beyond J7 - further south it's just closing LILOs etc.

Yeah thats true, that seems to be the case for the current plan, just meant that even in the future the furthest it can go is J9.

loyatemu

jvan wrote: »

Yeah thats true, that seems to be the case for the current plan, just meant that even in the future the furthest it can go is J9.

It's hard to see J6 - J11 ever being motorway standard, it's just too twisty and hemmed-in. J12 - J14 could be upgraded easily enough, it's pretty close to the standard already with virtually no private accesses.

prunudo

loyatemu wrote: »

It's hard to see J6 - J11 ever being motorway standard, it's just too twisty and hemmed-in. J12 - J14 could be upgraded easily enough, it's pretty close to the standard already with virtually no private accesses.

They're going to have to come up with sort of plan, whether its vastly improved train line from Wicklow or better bus service because they cant keep building houses and expect people to commute on the n11. As it is morning rush hour through the Glen of the Downs is over 2 hours, longer if there's an incident.

loyatemu

jvan wrote: »

They're going to have to come up with sort of plan, whether its vastly improved train line from Wicklow or better bus service because they cant keep building houses and expect people to commute on the n11. As it is morning rush hour through the Glen of the Downs is over 2 hours, longer if there's an incident.

there's apparently work in progress on improving Dart frequency to Greystones to every 20 mins, and I'd guess they'll also put on a shuttle service (hourly?) to Wicklow.

Widening the N11 through GotD is, as previously discussed, not likely and building a new road to the west would be just as controversial and expensive given the terrain.

prunudo

loyatemu wrote: »

there's apparently work in progress on improving Dart frequency to Greystones to every 20 mins, and I'd guess they'll also put on a shuttle service (hourly?) to Wicklow.

Widening the N11 through GotD is, as previously discussed, not likely and building a new road to the west would be just as controversial and expensive given the terrain.

As somebody pointed out to me when they were doing the original N11 widening. The Glen of the Downs is the only north south route through Wicklow that doesn't involve going over hilly/mountainous terrain. The road goes through a nature reserve and the plan at the time is as good as it gets. There is no scope for further widening without huge protest due to wildlife or cost because of engineering solutions such as tunnelling.

Roryhy

jvan wrote: »

As somebody pointed out to me when they were doing the original N11 widening. The Glen of the Downs is the only north south route through Wicklow that doesn't involve going over hilly/mountainous terrain. The road goes through a nature reserve and the plan at the time is as good as it gets. There is no scope for further widening without huge protest due to wildlife or cost because of engineering solutions such as tunnelling.

Think outside the box a little, why not stack the road, put northbound on stilts above the southbound carriageway or vice versa?

iwillhtfu

Roryhy wrote: »

Think outside the box a little, why not stack the road, put northbound on stilts above the southbound carriageway or vice versa?

We can't even manage to maintain a road or allow some sort of future proofing and now you want the same folks to build roads on stilts. :eek: Funniest thing I've heard all day:D

prunudo

Roryhy wrote: »

Think outside the box a little, why not stack the road, put northbound on stilts above the southbound carriageway or vice versa?

This is Ireland, we haven't thought outside the box or future proofed since the victorians were here.

Personally I think there should be huge investment in public transport options from Wicklow/Wexford before we start upgrading Glen of the Downs again.
Whether that is either dedicated bus lanes, new train lines or both.

BigMoose

Car decided it was quicker to send me via Roundwood and the Sally Gap this morning than sit on the N11 (Wicklow to Park West). I decided to opt out of the Sally Gap part, but did go Roundwood to Enniskerry then fed my way back to the M50 at Carrickmines. Took an hour leaving at 8:30 which was quicker than the N11 would have been. Crazy though that what should be motorway traffic was quicker on bendy country roads littered with stray sheep.

loyatemu

Roryhy wrote: »

Think outside the box a little, why not stack the road, put northbound on stilts above the southbound carriageway or vice versa?

Think INSIDE the box - dig out the existing road and put a new road in a concrete box tunnel below it, then put the road back on top.

prunudo

loyatemu wrote: »

Think INSIDE the box - dig out the existing road and put a new road in a concrete box tunnel below it, then put the road back on top.

Even better, put two boxes one on top of the other and plant grass on top to keep the eco warriers happy

I know my previous posts came across as negative but we don't have a good record when it comes to proactive solutions in this country.
As much as I'd love to see some sort of Alpine/European solution to the Glen, it's never going to happen.

spacetweek

There is enough space there to have 3 lanes each way. It won't be possible to fully turn it into a motorway though, as there are too many side accesses, but you could certainly improve the route hugely without needing any tunnel.

prunudo

spacetweek wrote: »

There is enough space there to have 3 lanes each way. It won't be possible to fully turn it into a motorway though, as there are too many side accesses, but you could certainly improve the route hugely without needing any tunnel.

There's nowhere near enough room for 3 lanes each way. As it is the hard shoulders are narrower than normal.

Reuben1210

jvan wrote: »

There's nowhere near enough room for 3 lanes each way. As it is the hard shoulders are narrower than normal.

There is - it just means more excavation and subsequent reinforcing of the bank on the west side, and piping the river on the eastern side. Also, more trees will need to be removed which could cause uproar again!

All the entrances can just be closed off, and accessed by a small parallel road, as is motorway standard, so it is possible to upgrade to motorway with some good civil engineering!

prunudo

If you send the bulldozers in there will be space alright but that ain't gone happen. There isn't a hope the river will be piped, the outcry will be like nothing this country has ever seen.

Any upgrade will cost money and involve engineering minds greater than lets pipe the river in a nature reserve.

Chris_5339762

The only options they'd have (and it would cost a small fortune but you never know) is rework the current road to 3 lanes southbound only, and build a northbound tunnel.

Kermit.de.frog

I don't see what the problem is?

Just widen the road. Simples.

The eco warrior types of the 90's in their tents are too busy on their smart phones now to care.

prunudo

Arup signed up to look at options for upgrades.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=979170385624507&id=465326963675521

Thud

Timely, was that crash at the petrol station on Tuesday?
http://wicklownews.net/2018/11/n-11-reopens-at-kilmacanogue-following-crash/

prunudo

Thud wrote: »

Timely, was that crash at the petrol station on Tuesday?
http://wicklownews.net/2018/11/n-11-reopens-at-kilmacanogue-following-crash/

Yeah, pretty much. Although as bad as the layout is, the standard of driving is shocking lately.

Macy0161

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is?

Just widen the road. Simples.

I really would've been from this school of thought, but I'm commuting the N11 long enough to remember when the Aux Lane and M50 widening was going to be the solution (I was commuting the M50 when the extra lane(s) were going to "fix" it). More road space just means more cars.

If they could widen the alignment, they'd be better going rail and a load of Park and Rides the whole way up. The root cause of the state of the N/M11 is the poor/ at capacity public transport options, imo.

Perhaps they could do that now, with a BRT type solution? The demand is actually there for buses (given the capacity issues on the 133, Dublin Bus, and the success of Wexford bus).

That doesn't take away the fact they have to address the clusterf*ck that is Kilmac.

They should've CPO'd both garages (northbound on ramp from the R755 is regularly blocked with a combination of garage queues and illegal parking, as some people's coffee is more important than the impact on others...)

loyatemu

the road was previously widened, what, 15 years ago? It's now worse than it was then. We can't just keep building more space for cars, particularly as it feeds into the M50 and Stillorgan Rd. neither of which are likely to be widened.

As well as increasing capacity on the rail line they need to build a bus lane on the N11 and run the Bus Eireann buses at higher frequency - there's plenty of spare capacity on the N11 bus route from Loughlinstown in, and they could run some buses to Cherrywood/Sandyford too.

Macy0161

loyatemu wrote: »

As well as increasing capacity on the rail line they need to build a bus lane on the N11 and run the Bus Eireann buses at higher frequency - there's plenty of spare capacity on the N11 bus route from Loughlinstown in, and they could run some buses to Cherrywood/Sandyford too.

They would have to address the access to that route too though. Parking is already an issue in the likes of Ashford, with some of the businesses needing pay parking to stop it being used as a park and ride.

Kermit.de.frog

Macy0161 wrote: »

I really would've been from this school of thought, but I'm commuting the N11 long enough to remember when the Aux Lane and M50 widening was going to be the solution (I was commuting the M50 when the extra lane(s) were going to "fix" it). More road space just means more cars.

If they could widen the alignment, they'd be better going rail and a load of Park and Rides the whole way up. The root cause of the state of the N/M11 is the poor/ at capacity public transport options, imo.

Perhaps they could do that now, with a BRT type solution? The demand is actually there for buses (given the capacity issues on the 133, Dublin Bus, and the success of Wexford bus).

That doesn't take away the fact they have to address the clusterf*ck that is Kilmac.

They should've CPO'd both garages (northbound on ramp from the R755 is regularly blocked with a combination of garage queues and illegal parking, as some people's coffee is more important than the impact on others...)

Sorry but the real cause of the problems is a substandard road.

PT is a nonsense argument. Only after roads are properly built should there be PT options discussed.

spacetweek

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Sorry but the real cause of the problems is a substandard road.

PT is a nonsense argument. Only after roads are properly built should there be PT options discussed.

In the absence of PT road widening just generates more traffic as all the additional transport demand is mopped up by car.

marno21

jvan wrote: »

Arup signed up to look at options for upgrades.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=979170385624507&id=465326963675521

Fantastic stuff. We can count this as underway so for Phases 1-4.

marno21

Confirmation from Wicklow County Council of the appointment of Arup: https://www.wicklow.ie/Living/News-Events/appointment-of-ove-arup-partners-ltd-as-consultant-engineers-on-the-n11m11-junction-4-to-14-improvement-scheme-12414

Here's the N11 Needs Assessment: http://www.tii.ie/tii-library/strategic-planning/strategic-reports/M11_N11_Needs_Assessment_Report.pdf

Plan would appear to be 3 lanes to Kilmacanogue, junction upgrades between Bray and Kilmacanogue and closure of accesses south of Kilmacanogue

loyatemu

spacetweek wrote: »

In the absence of PT road widening just generates more traffic as all the additional transport demand is mopped up by car.

you're wasting your time arguing with KdF - he wants 12 lane superhighways everywhere.