Athlone bypass! should it be a motorway?

KevR · 16-07-2009 1:18pm

I think it's funny when people start going on about how bad quality the Bypass is and that it should only have a 100kmh speed limit because anything higher is unsafe. What do you have to say about all the other N roads near Athlone and all round the country which are greatly inferior to it and have a 100kmh speed limit? They're never mentioned for some reason.

Nobody is saying the Athlone Bypass is of the same standard as our brand new motorways but it is still a very good stretch of Dual Carriageway that is capable of high speeds. I drive the whole way from Galway everyday and can cruise along at 100kmh on the crumbling single carrigeway N6. Then when I get onto the much superior Athlone Bypass I am only allowed to travel at the same speed? Something is seriously wrong there.

I use it everyday and the majority of people seem to exceed the 100kmh limit from my experience. This is proof that it is a high speed road which is perfectly capable of handling 120kmh traffic. Some people have the attitude of "May aswell break the limit by a lot rather than a little" (i.e. - driving at 130/135 kmh instead of 110/120kmh). It's difficult (pretty much impossible) for the Gardai to enforce the limit at all when so many are exceeding it. If the limit was altered to reflect common driving practice then the Gardai could actually start enforcing the it (majority would stick to the 120kmh limit and the Gardai could catch the few that chance 130/135/140kmh). Surely this would make more sense?

People are trying to make it out to be a death trap just because it's not quite up to the same standard as our brand new motorways.

Saying that, I'm not very fussed about the speed limit being raised to 120kmh (I have stated this on more than one occasion previously). If it gets redesignated I don't mind if it stays at 100kmh. My main concerns are banning cyclists, pedestrians, slow moving vehicles and protecting the route from inappropriate development.

veryangryman · 16-07-2009 1:29pm

KevR wrote: »

I think it's funny when people start going on about how bad quality the Bypass is and that it should only have a 100kmh speed limit because anything higher is unsafe. What do you have to say about all the other N roads near Athlone and all round the country which are greatly inferior to it and have a 100kmh speed limit? They're never mentioned for some reason.

Nobody is saying the Athlone Bypass is of the same standard as our brand new motorways but it is still a very good stretch of Dual Carriageway that is capable of high speeds. I drive the whole way from Galway everyday and can cruise along at 100kmh on the crumbling single carrigeway N6. Then when I get onto the much superior Athlone Bypass I am only allowed to travel at the same speed? Something is seriously wrong there.

I use it everyday and the majority of people seem to exceed the 100kmh limit from my experience. This is proof that it is a high speed road which is perfectly capable of handling 120kmh traffic. Some people have the attitude of "May aswell break the limit by a lot rather than a little" (i.e. - driving at 130/135 kmh instead of 110/120kmh). It's difficult (pretty much impossible) for the Gardai to enforce the limit at all when so many are exceeding it. If the limit was altered to reflect common driving practice then the Gardai could actually start enforcing the it (majority would stick to the 120kmh limit and the Gardai could catch the few that chance 130/135/140kmh). Surely this would make more sense?

People are trying to make it out to be a death trap just because it's not quite up to the same standard as our brand new motorways.

Saying that, I'm not very fussed about the speed limit being raised to 120kmh (I have stated this on more than one occasion previously). If it gets redesignated I don't mind if it stays at 100kmh. My main concerns are banning cyclists, pedestrians, slow moving vehicles and protecting the route from inappropriate development.

Have you seen some of the crazy limits currently on the bypass? 80...60 and even 50 (coming to the diversion so maybe that one is ok to suit Johnny Tourist)

Arse Heads The Up. Rearrange the words and you will find NRA

BluntGuy · 16-07-2009 1:29pm

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/motors/2009/0325/1224243363260.html

In the case of the N6 near Athlone, for example, local Fine Gael councillor John Naughten said he “would have concerns about the implications for development on the west side of Athlone – particularly on the SO1 site in Bogganfin – as access would be prohibited if the road is reclassified as motorway”.

The councillor also raised the issues of access by learner drivers and farmers. Similar submissions have been made by others, including property developers, landowners and local authorities across the roads network

lucernarian · 16-07-2009 1:54pm

Since when was it the NRA's job to worry about property development one way or another??

The fact that the M1 was a motorway didn't get in the way of concrete madness when the Drynam partial motorway junction was built. Look at all the development that went on around that junction. They have a skeleton bus service but a motorway junction that works to/from Dublin. Hmmm....

As for the speed limit on the Athlone Bypass, it's already been illustrated that the road as it stands does not have the surface quality to take 120kph. There's a big difference between the two standards when it comes to road surfaces.

There's a mile of difference (or 10 miles if you will) between a 20 year old dual carriageway built to 60mph specs and *any* motorway, even the Naas bypass before it was resurfaced. And that motorway is over 20 years old.

KevR, you do have a point about the state of other roads. While you're right about that (And there's a big argument to make those stretches of roads 80kph too), it doesn't change the fact that the road was never built to the right standard and WOULD be less safe if the speed limit was increased.

And what are you talking about in relation to the Gardaí?!?! That they can't enforce speed limits because there's so many breaking them?! It's the first time I've heard the Traffic Corps shy away from a fine-generating opportunity.

If your concern was over the safety and well-being of the cyclists and pedestrians, and the slow vehicles and their place on the high-speed roads, surely the solution would be to provide alternative routing for them, before forcing them off the road? A route that wouldn't leave them driving through much of a very large town. It's not good enough to have a situation that some can go from A to B in a couple of minutes, while the rest can s**g off and go from A to B via C, D and E in 15 minutes (much more if a cyclist or pedestrian)

Ardent · 16-07-2009 2:00pm

KevR wrote: »

I think it's funny when people start going on about how bad quality the Bypass is and that it should only have a 100kmh speed limit because anything higher is unsafe. What do you have to say about all the other N roads near Athlone and all round the country which are greatly inferior to it and have a 100kmh speed limit? They're never mentioned for some reason.

Nobody is saying the Athlone Bypass is of the same standard as our brand new motorways but it is still a very good stretch of Dual Carriageway that is capable of high speeds. I drive the whole way from Galway everyday and can cruise along at 100kmh on the crumbling single carrigeway N6. Then when I get onto the much superior Athlone Bypass I am only allowed to travel at the same speed? Something is seriously wrong there.

I use it everyday and the majority of people seem to exceed the 100kmh limit from my experience. This is proof that it is a high speed road which is perfectly capable of handling 120kmh traffic. Some people have the attitude of "May aswell break the limit by a lot rather than a little" (i.e. - driving at 130/135 kmh instead of 110/120kmh). It's difficult (pretty much impossible) for the Gardai to enforce the limit at all when so many are exceeding it. If the limit was altered to reflect common driving practice then the Gardai could actually start enforcing the it (majority would stick to the 120kmh limit and the Gardai could catch the few that chance 130/135/140kmh). Surely this would make more sense?

People are trying to make it out to be a death trap just because it's not quite up to the same standard as our brand new motorways.

Saying that, I'm not very fussed about the speed limit being raised to 120kmh (I have stated this on more than one occasion previously). If it gets redesignated I don't mind if it stays at 100kmh. My main concerns are banning cyclists, pedestrians, slow moving vehicles and protecting the route from inappropriate development.

I drive the Athlone bypass a lot. Heading in the Galway direction, 120 km/h on that road is hairy stuff. It's not fit for that speed - fact.

16-07-2009 2:23pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

And what are you talking about in relation to the Gardaí?!?! That they can't enforce speed limits because there's so many breaking them?! It's the first time I've heard the Traffic Corps shy away from a fine-generating opportunity.

Athlone CC in their wisdom have placed 80 & 50 kmh signs on the westbound carriageway on the approach to the roscommon junction, 99% of traffic ignore these completely (except tractors

).
It has been reported in one of the local papers a few weeks ago that the police are not really interested in speed checking that road, accusations of "fish in a barrel" etc, but will concentrate on bad driving here.

Ardent wrote: »

I drive the Athlone bypass a lot. Heading in the Galway direction, 120 km/h on that road is hairy stuff. It's not fit for that speed - fact.

In comparison to the 100 odd Km of new motorway before it, that first bend near Garycastle wakes you up! You do need your wits about you on that section, in reality you need your wits about at all times when driving!

I often move into the overtaking lane as I approach the Ballymahon Bridge in anticipation of joining traffic merging without getting up to speed first (100kmh), it often happens. Same again over the Coosan bridge as there is a huge pothole there!

L1011 · 16-07-2009 11:57pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I'm only going to say that anyone who feels the athlone bypass should be made a motorway with a 120kph speedlimit is an irresponsible hypocrite if they cite safety claims.

And anyone who is basing their arguments on it being a 120km/h motorway after a hypothetical redesignation has paid absolutely no attention and is an irresponsible arguer. Westmeath CC started the process to keep it at 100km/h quite some time ago.

mysterious · 17-07-2009 4:45am

KevR wrote: »

I think it's funny when people start going on about how bad quality the Bypass is and that it should only have a 100kmh speed limit because anything higher is unsafe. What do you have to say about all the other N roads near Athlone and all round the country which are greatly inferior to it and have a 100kmh speed limit? They're never mentioned for some reason.

The road is 100k/m/h its not going to change not ever.

Why debate it.

Nobody is saying the Athlone Bypass is of the same standard as our brand new motorways but it is still a very good stretch of Dual Carriageway that is capable of high speeds.

Yes they are and you said it too.

By high speeds you mean what speed. its' not built to cater speeds of 120kmh. With the bridge, bends and many closely spaced interhnges with ramps every mile or so. It is not capable of doing 120kmh from a safety perspective.

I drive the whole way from Galway everyday and can cruise along at 100kmh on the crumbling single carrigeway N6. Then when I get onto the much superior Athlone Bypass I am only allowed to travel at the same speed? Something is seriously wrong there.

So When I drive on the Nass bypass, and then hit the widened superior do I apply your bull**** argument here as well.

Your whole non-point is wrong thats whats wrong

I use it everyday and the majority of people seem to exceed the 100kmh limit from my experience. This is proof that it is a high speed road which is perfectly capable of handling 120kmh traffic. Some people have the attitude of "May aswell break the limit by a lot rather than a little" (i.e. - driving at 130/135 kmh instead of 110/120kmh). It's difficult (pretty much impossible) for the Gardai to enforce the limit at all when so many are exceeding it. If the limit was altered to reflect common driving practice then the Gardai could actually start enforcing the it (majority would stick to the 120kmh limit and the Gardai could catch the few that chance 130/135/140kmh). Surely this would make more sense?

Why are you arguing this?

Saying that, I'm not very fussed about the speed limit being raised to 120kmh (I have stated this on more than one occasion previously).

ROFL, for someone isn't fussed about it, you certainly gave us whole the whole elabarative bull**** paragraph after paragraph of pure waffel.

If it gets redesignated I don't mind if it stays at 100kmh. My main concerns are banning cyclists, pedestrians, slow moving vehicles and protecting the route from inappropriate development.

We can ban cyclists and pedestrians

But simply giving it special road status.

SeanW · 17-07-2009 5:40am

But as usual, you ignored the points about inappropriate development, and the part about how developers have had their say about the redesignation proposals. You have totally ignored the potential for another Mahon Point or Kew Gardens type destruction of the dual carriageway.

I'm going to repeat this one. more. time.

The only way to protect a trunk dual carriageway under Irish law from this kind of development is to reclassify it Motorway.

There is also no such thing in Irish law as a Special Road. The 100kph speed thing is a red herring also a red herring as the M50 also contains sub-optimal features and has a 100k limit for much of its length.
For all the accusations you make about "I want my blue signs" ... I think 'the lady doth protest too much,' because when I see those accuastions I see you saying "I want my Cumberland Gap."

L1011 · 17-07-2009 7:54am

mysterious wrote: »

The road is 100k/m/h its not going to change not ever.
We can ban cyclists and pedestrians

But simply giving it special road status.

WHICH IS NOT LEGALLY POSSIBLE

How many times do you need to be told the same thing?

veryangryman · 17-07-2009 9:12am

MYOB wrote: »

WHICH IS NOT LEGALLY POSSIBLE

How many times do you need to be told the same thing?

Course it is. Jack Lynch Tunel anyone?

KevR · 17-07-2009 9:44am

veryangryman wrote: »

Course it is. Jack Lynch Tunel anyone?

Apparently those signs forbidding pedestrians and cyclists carry no legal backing whatsoever. If you wanted to walk or cycle into the Jack Lynch Tunnel I don't think the Gardai could stop you.

KevR · 17-07-2009 10:05am

mysterious wrote: »

By high speeds you mean what speed. its' not built to cater speeds of 120kmh. With the bridge, bends and many closely spaced interhnges with ramps every mile or so. It is not capable of doing 120kmh from a safety perspective.

So When I drive on the Nass bypass, and then hit the widened superior do I apply your argument here as well.

Fair points to make.

The first point - I still don't really agree. I doubt either of us will change our views on the matter and I accept that the speed limit won't be changing anyway so we should just leave it at that.

I'm not very familiar with the Naas Bypass or the N7 so I won't comment too much. But if one section is inferior to another section surely there should be different speed limits? Unless you're referring to where it's 3 lanes instead of 2, in which case the number of lanes doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of road.

mysterious wrote: »

The road is 100k/m/h its not going to change not ever.

Why debate it.

Yes they are and you said it too.

We can ban cyclists and pedestrians

But simply giving it special road status.

Why are you arguing this?

ROFL, for someone isn't fussed about it, you certainly gave us whole the whole elabarative bull**** paragraph after paragraph of pure waffel.

Your whole non-point is wrong thats whats wrong

bull****

As for the rest of the post^
It's an internet forum - people are free to discuss, debate and argue anything they want. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they can't post. If you really have a problem with a person's posts then you can ignore the posts or there is an ignore button to ignore people altogether.
There's no need to take such offence at someone's opinion.

17-07-2009 10:09am

I'm sure there's nothing to stop Athlone CC from applying for the powers to ban Peds & cyclists from the N6 relief road, they would be reluctant to ban tractors etc of course.

And while they're at it, order a few of these!!!

veryangryman · 17-07-2009 11:40am

KevR wrote: »

Fair points to make.

The first point - I still don't really agree. I doubt either of us will change our views on the matter and I accept that the speed limit won't be changing anyway so we should just leave it at that.

I'm not very familiar with the Naas Bypass or the N7 so I won't comment too much. But if one section is inferior to another section surely there should be different speed limits? Unless you're referring to where it's 3 lanes instead of 2, in which case the number of lanes doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of road.

As for the rest of the post^
It's an internet forum - people are free to discuss, debate and argue anything they want. Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they can't post. If you really have a problem with a person's posts then you can ignore the posts or there is an ignore button to ignore people altogether.
There's no need to take such offence at someone's opinion.

Mysterious has a long history of walking the line between debating and personal insults.

Words like "retarded" and "bullsh1t" roll off his keyboard so much that the individual keys are suffering from excessive wear.

That said, he occasionally makes a decent point. Hes like Hitler. Some great plans with 100% employment, Autobahns etc, but his methods are extreme. *

* I do agree with nuking pedestrians on bypass mind

mysterious · 17-07-2009 5:15pm

MYOB wrote: »

WHICH IS NOT LEGALLY POSSIBLE

How many times do you need to be told the same thing?

Belfast westlink has restrictions.

No cyclists and pedestrians.

Stop the bul****.

mysterious · 17-07-2009 5:32pm

Tractorphobia

Is now in the dictionary.

I think if your going to ban it tractors on ever DC, you may aswell just have every road motorway. The Bypass is a shannon crossing slower vehicles need to use the bridge to get over the bloody Shannon.

If they build a proper alternative route
For local, slow moving vehlcles then fair enough. The fact that the Road will never have a 120kmh speed limit and it not up to motorway spec.

I don't see the logic in making it motorway.

Other than i want a pretty blue road

Zoney · 17-07-2009 6:57pm

mysterious wrote: »

Belfast westlink has restrictions.

Belfast is not in this jurisdiction.

L1011 · 17-07-2009 7:22pm

mysterious wrote: »

Belfast westlink has restrictions.

No cyclists and pedestrians.

Stop the bul****.

That is IN ANOTHER COUNTRY!

mysterious · 17-07-2009 8:05pm

Didnt know Cork got it's independance.

I waaaaaaaaaant my blue road.

Stark · 17-07-2009 8:34pm

mysterious wrote: »

Didnt know Cork got it's independance.

I waaaaaaaaaant my blue road.

You've read the posts explaining that situation. At this stage it's obvious you're just trolling.

SeanW · 17-07-2009 9:09pm

mysterious wrote: »

I don't see the logic in making it motorway.

Other than i want a pretty blue road

Re read post number 160 - I put some key information in there about development. I even highlighted the key point about development so that you could not possibly miss it. I too must begin to wonder if you are trolling.

BluntGuy · 17-07-2009 9:24pm

If not to stop inappropiate development, enhance safety and provide a consistent route, perhaps at least the prospect of shutting Mysterious up provides an attractive reason to redesignate this stretch.

Facts, logic and expressing your opinion respectfully make for a good debate.

Non-facts, erroneous logic and a clear lack of respect for other people's point of view make for the crap we've seen in these threads.

I am happy to debate this but not when my arguments are simply denigrated as "I want my blue road". If that's to be the case, I will simply have to denigrate your arguments as ridiculous twaddle pulled from the cavernous depths of your rectum.

I shall not be replying until I see proper, respectful debate on this issue.

L1011 · 17-07-2009 10:30pm

mysterious wrote: »

Didnt know Cork got it's independance.

I waaaaaaaaaant my blue road.

You haven't got a clue, have you.

Cork is in Ireland. Ireland has no concept of 'special roads'. The Belfast Westlink is in the United Kingdom, which does.

I have to agree with BluntGuy and Stark - you've got so idiotic on this topic that its impossible that you're doing anything other than trolling.

G_R · 18-07-2009 12:05am

mysterious wrote: »

Belfast westlink has restrictions.

No cyclists and pedestrians.

Stop the bul****.

BELFAST is in Northern Ireland which is in the UK which is not part of The Republic of Ireland which is where Athlone is

How many times

icdg · 18-07-2009 11:55am

I'll try and explain this again.

In the UK, "special road" status is the legal basis for a road being motorway. The Secretary of State for Transport/ Scottish Government/Welsh Ministers/Minister for Regional Development (select which appropiate to which country) makes a statutory instrument declaring the section of road to be a special road. Most of the "motorway regulations" are in fact special road regulations. All motorways are special roads, but not all special roads are motorways - there are some that are "A" roads. The main difference between a special road that is a motorway and one that is not is, apart from the signs being blue instead of green, a 70 mph limit applies by default on motorways wheras a non-motorway special road will have a stated speed limit. While the UK has discontinued the Motorway Ahead sign, you'll still see a variation of it on non-motorway special roads to indicate restrictions (NO L-Drivers, Vehicles under 50cc, slow vehicles, invalid-carriages, pedestrians, animals).

In the Republic of Ireland, we have a different legal basis for being a motorway. This is that, prior to the road's construction, a Motorway Order is made under the Roads Act 1993. This is the planning premission and CPO combined in one for a motorway and gives legal authority for the motorway to be constructed and have regulations apply when it opens. The Roads Act 2007 introduced an alternative procedure and that is the "motorway redesignation" procedure we are fighting about here. That allows the Minister for Transport to designate by statutory instrument a strech of road as a motorway. It applies only to roads open, under construction, or in planning on the day the Act was signed into law and that have similar charcteristics to motorways already in existance in the state (i.e. HQDCs).

I should point out that the Roads Act 1993 also includes a facility to create a non-motorway "protected road" which can some, but not all, of the motorway restrictions. However this would need a Scheme similar to a Motorway Order prior to the road's construction and wouldn't be suitable to the Athlone Bypass. To my knowledge the protected road scheme has never been used, though it may be the basis for restrictions in the Jack Lynch Tunnel.

Victor · 18-07-2009 11:21pm

Cop on folks.

flazio · 22-07-2009 12:41pm

May I throw in a slightly outside the box idea on how to grant non motor-way eligible traffic access to the Shannon bridge?
Basically we barrier off the hard shoulder in both directions from the Apple Green underpass to the Roscommon turn off. Westbound slow traffic would join from the Applegreen turn off, remain in the lane and then turn off heading for Roscommon or Monksland, Traffic who join from here who wish to join the motorway would be given a lane to merge with traffic coming from the Roscommon road onto the motorway.
East bound the land would start from the Roscommon RAB and head down towards the Coosan Applegreen turn off. Traffic wisihing to join the motorway just drive across and use the merge lane ahead.
Any Thoughts?

22-07-2009 12:47pm

flazio wrote: »

May I throw in a slightly outside the box idea on how to grant non motor-way eligible traffic access to the Shannon bridge?
Basically we barrier off the hard shoulder in both directions from the Apple Green underpass to the Roscommon turn off. Westbound slow traffic would join from the Applegreen turn off, remain in the lane and then turn off heading for Roscommon or Monksland, Traffic who join from here who wish to join the motorway would be given a lane to merge with traffic coming from the Roscommon road onto the motorway.
East bound the land would start from the Roscommon RAB and head down towards the Coosan Applegreen turn off. Traffic wisihing to join the motorway just drive across and use the merge lane ahead.
Any Thoughts?

Sorry that won't work, infact it would make the road extremly dangerous as the mainline width would be greatly reduced to leave sufficient space for tractor-trailer units that are often much wider than the hard shoulder on the bridge.

My preference is for "special road" status for the bridge crossing for slow vehicles only no cycles or pedestrians.

flazio · 22-07-2009 12:54pm

Nothing stopping them (apart from cost of course) from widening the bridge a smidgen (fill in that hole between the lanes), Look at the M50 toll bride, and beside this barriered slow lane they could put in a cycle/walkway

I just thought I'd throw in a suggestion as an alternative to make the best of what we've got. I'll admit I've no engineering education or anything but you know it always takes some to ASK why not before someone gives the answer.

Athlone bypass! should it be a motorway?

Comments