Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

M21 - Limerick to Rathkeale/Foynes [advance works to commence shortly]

1679111234

Comments

  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    spacetweek wrote: »
    You sure that's right? 2x 5.0 metres?
    Yep that's it

    3.0m H/S | 5.0m lane | 5.0m lane | 3.0m H/S

    It's a ridiculous amount of pavement for a 2 lane road. 2/3km further south it's a 2 lane road with a pavement 8/9m narrower.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,951 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    marno21 wrote: »
    Yep that's it

    3.0m H/S | 5.0m lane | 5.0m lane | 3.0m H/S

    It's a ridiculous amount of pavement for a 2 lane road. 2/3km further south it's a 2 lane road with a pavement 8/9m narrower.

    You're right - clearly visible here.
    That's 8 metres each side. If you widened 1.5 more metres, you'd have 9.5, which could easily be divided up: 2.0 hard strip, 3.5 lane, 3.5 lane, 0.5 central barrier. Very easy to upgrade to 4 lanes.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Yep, it looks even wider north of the GSJ (which will be closed up as part of the M20 scheme). The only issue is the bridge over the River Maigue, which has no room left at the sides and will be a tight squeeze when eventually dualled.

    Nonetheless, the Rathkeale-Foynes element of this scheme certainly won't be the old 'WS2' type, at a guess it'll most likely be T1 Single Carraigeway or maybe Type 2 dual if they want it to be of expressway standard for TEN-T.


  • Registered Users Posts: 774 ✭✭✭pajoguy


    spacetweek wrote: »
    You're right - clearly visible here.
    That's 8 metres each side. If you widened 1.5 more metres, you'd have 9.5, which could easily be divided up: 2.0 hard strip, 3.5 lane, 3.5 lane, 0.5 central barrier. Very easy to upgrade to 4 lanes.

    I drive at 110kph on this stretch of road and its not fast enough for most drivers. Its a crazy width of pavement. I hope its motorway standard on m21 and some type of d.c. for the rest. Castleisland bypass standard would be sufficient I think.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    pajoguy wrote: »
    I drive at 110kph on this stretch of road and its not fast enough for most drivers. Its a crazy width of pavement. I hope its motorway standard on m21 and some type of d.c. for the rest. Castleisland bypass standard would be sufficient I think.
    The plan for the future beyond Rathkeale to the county boundary from the 2010 Abbeyfeale-Adare scheme (will have to go back to the drawing board as part of this scheme is being built by the scheme discussed in this thread) was Type 2 Dual Carriageway (2+2) along this stretch. It remains to be seen whether the wide S2 between Castleisland and Abbeyfeale would be retrofitted to 2+2 to connect the 2+2 at Feale Bridge to the Castleisland BP.

    I would hope, and assume, that Adare-Rathkeale will be M. When the N20/N21 split at M20 J5, 3/5 of the traffic goes for the N21 and 2/5 for the N20. The N20 upgrade is planned as M so the N21 one should too. Especially seeing as bypassing Adare will bring a lot of ratrunners off local roads & indeed the N69 onto this new road, further increasing potential traffic volumes.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    There's a provisional corridor up on the scheme website: http://www.foyneslimerick.ie/

    However it's passworded, anyone local know how to get access?


  • Registered Users Posts: 667 ✭✭✭BelfastVanMan


    Seems to be working ok, now. :-)


  • Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭rliston


    Seems to be working ok, now. :-)
    Still coming up as password protected for me.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,951 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    marno21 wrote: »
    The plan for the future beyond Rathkeale to the county boundary from the 2010 Abbeyfeale-Adare scheme (will have to go back to the drawing board as part of this scheme is being built by the scheme discussed in this thread) was Type 2 Dual Carriageway (2+2) along this stretch. It remains to be seen whether the wide S2 between Castleisland and Abbeyfeale would be retrofitted to 2+2 to connect the 2+2 at Feale Bridge to the Castleisland BP.

    I would hope, and assume, that Adare-Rathkeale will be M. When the N20/N21 split at M20 J5, 3/5 of the traffic goes for the N21 and 2/5 for the N20. The N20 upgrade is planned as M so the N21 one should too. Especially seeing as bypassing Adare will bring a lot of ratrunners off local roads & indeed the N69 onto this new road, further increasing potential traffic volumes.
    This video (at 50:15) confirms that the N21 part will only be D2AP (standard non-motorway DC) and the N69 element will be single carriageway. No motorway parts.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,600 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Clear cache if you're getting password issues


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,951 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    L1011 wrote: »
    Clear cache if you're getting password issues

    I'm being asked for the password even with browsers I never normally use.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,600 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    spacetweek wrote: »
    I'm being asked for the password even with browsers I never normally use.

    Very odd. Not really interested in to doing site debugging for them, but they may have allowed IP ranges or some form of georestriction; not that either make sense.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    spacetweek wrote: »
    This video (at 50:15) confirms that the N21 part will only be D2AP (standard non-motorway DC) and the N69 element will be single carriageway. No motorway parts.

    I saw that and I think it has to be a typo. The N21 as is west of the M20 is already over capacity for a T2DC. Surely won't be built for 2005 level of traffic


  • Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Treepole


    L1011 wrote: »
    Very odd. Not really interested in to doing site debugging for them, but they may have allowed IP ranges or some form of georestriction; not that either make sense.

    Have you tried actually clicking into the section titled "Provisional Corridor" or are you just talking about the site in general?


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,600 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Treepole wrote: »
    Have you tried actually clicking into the section titled "Provisional Corridor" or are you just talking about the site in general?

    Yes - the PDFs come down fine for me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭rliston


    https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1190029071017256&id=100000305229703&set=ecnf.100000305229703&source=49

    We should have more information soon. There's a meeting today at 2 where councillors are getting a briefing on the route.


  • Registered Users Posts: 447 ✭✭Limerick74


    Looks like the project website is updated now foyneslimerick.ie


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭Irish_rat


    marno21 wrote: »
    I saw that and I think it has to be a typo. The N21 as is west of the M20 is already over capacity for a T2DC. Surely won't be built for 2005 level of traffic

    The M28 is not a typo on the presentation so I would take it that the N21 section will be type 2 dual.

    Very shortsighted IMO and traffic levels will only increase into the future.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Irish_rat wrote: »
    The M28 is not a typo on the presentation so I would take it that the N21 section will be type 2 dual.

    Very shortsighted IMO and traffic levels will only increase into the future.

    Shortsighted doesn't even begin to describe it. Mainline N21 traffic levels already exceed the volume for a Type 2 DC.

    Sounds to me like there's so little being committed to this roads programme that sacrifices have to be made.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Middle Man


    marno21 wrote: »
    Irish_rat wrote: »
    The M28 is not a typo on the presentation so I would take it that the N21 section will be type 2 dual.

    Very shortsighted IMO and traffic levels will only increase into the future.

    Shortsighted doesn't even begin to describe it. Mainline N21 traffic levels already exceed the volume for a Type 2 DC.

    Sounds to me like there's so little being committed to this roads programme that sacrifices have to be made.
    Using reasonable traffic assumptions (2% annual traffic growth - approx 100% increase over 35 years (5 yrs procurement + 30 yrs operational life)), a motorway is well justified to Rathkeale and by the time the N21 to Abbeyfeale is considered, the traffic is likely to be 11,000+ along that stretch hence justifying a motorway there.

    Penny pinching does not pay as this English example shows...

    http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Catthorpe_Interchange


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭pigtown


    Shortened from the Route Selection Report
    http://media.wix.com/ugd/1cba1b_29bd1a1841804ba9abb052089a460431.pdf
    The May 2014 traffic surveys indicate that the existing N21 carries a flow of between 13,900 AADT east of Newcastle West to a maximum of 17,100 AADT east of Adare village.
    The anticipated traffic flows on Route Corridor Options 2, 3 and 4 in Scheme Design Year 2039 range from a minimum of 14,250 AADT west of Adare on Route Corridor Option 4 to a maximum of 22,850AADT east of Adare on Route Corridor Option 4.
    These flow volumes are within the ranges indicated for a Type 1 (Capacity 42,000 AADT) Dual Carriageway, but exceed the capacity of a Type 2 (Capacity 20,000 AADT) Dual Carriageway.
    Also given that each of Route Corridor Options 2, 3 and 4 constitute a continuation of the existing M20 (an existing Type 1 Dual Carriageway motorway) it is recommended that the options along the N21 corridor should be developed as Type 1 Dual Carriageways at this stage of the project.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭Irish_rat


    Great stuff, that report is worth reading.

    I'm surprised at the AADT recorded west of NCW, was expecting more of a drop-off.

    AADT.png

    My interest in roads stagnated with the economic turndown :pac: so out of curiosity I wanted to check the AADT figures. It's staggering now :eek:

    Between J29 and J30 of the M7 where I commute almost daily it's very close to 40,000. On that pic it's 34K.

    Then I looked at the figures on the M50 and N40, wow!


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,951 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    marno21 wrote: »

    The omission of a Croagh junction is perhaps a little surprising - but the Rathkeale junction will be close.


  • Registered Users Posts: 627 ✭✭✭JeffK88


    Would of thought they might of included a short spur of M20, so that when a M20 plan comes along it would be less disruptive and be forward thinking. Kinda like the original M9 spur.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    Kinda tricky to tie in, and since no-one knows whats happening with the M20 (build it, reactivate the plans, dump the plans and start again), they probably don't have any option.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,017 ✭✭✭Vanquished


    Under the original M20 plan an interchange was to be constructed immediately west of the existing M20 J5 (see attached). As part of the shambolic and ultimately disastrous attempt to re-route the Adare bypass to the south of the village the interchange was moved further to the west.

    The positioning of the future Adare junction will mean it'll be in relatively close proximity to a future M20 interchange. As the new N21 will lead inescapably on to the M20 at least a portion of the new road will have to come under motorway restrictions once the M20 is extended. Unless of course they decide to construct an elevated roundabout interchange between the two roads! :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 627 ✭✭✭JeffK88


    Looks like they'll be going back to the drawing board with the M20 so roll on another consultation. Forward thinking and Infrastructure in Ireland don't exactly go together like bread and butter.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    It's fairly sad and typically Irish that we're talking about this scheme being outdated before it's even put to tender.

    They should have done the most future proofed thing here and built a short stretch of M20 from the proposed interchanged at Attyflin to the far side of Croom, taking in the dualling of the quite dangerous free-for-all Croom bypass. This would've meant proper connectivity around this area, meant the M20 was started and also saves the future year of road works when the brand new M21 will have to be torn up to put in the M20 interchange (which I am confident isn't too far away - we won't have the current clowns in power for ever).

    Regarding the cross section of the new Adare-Rathkeale mainline, I would be fairly sure it will be Type 1 DC or Motorway, regardless of the TII presentation. The traffic levels east of Adare already exceed the capacity of a Type 2 DC (remember this standard is there as an equivilant to WS2 - would we build such a high traffic road as WS2?) - and this doesn't take into account the amount of people that use various rat runs to avoid Adare, once it's bypassed these will all try and use the new road - thereby increasing traffic levels on an already overcapacity road.

    If we are building a motorway from Gort to Tuam then we surely have the cop on to realise that a motorway is also required here.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,540 ✭✭✭Leonard Hofstadter


    marno21 wrote: »
    It's fairly sad and typically Irish that we're talking about this scheme being outdated before it's even put to tender.

    They should have done the most future proofed thing here and built a short stretch of M20 from the proposed interchanged at Attyflin to the far side of Croom, taking in the dualling of the quite dangerous free-for-all Croom bypass. This would've meant proper connectivity around this area, meant the M20 was started and also saves the future year of road works when the brand new M21 will have to be torn up to put in the M20 interchange (which I am confident isn't too far away - we won't have the current clowns in power for ever).

    Regarding the cross section of the new Adare-Rathkeale mainline, I would be fairly sure it will be Type 1 DC or Motorway, regardless of the TII presentation. The traffic levels east of Adare already exceed the capacity of a Type 2 DC (remember this standard is there as an equivilant to WS2 - would we build such a high traffic road as WS2?) - and this doesn't take into account the amount of people that use various rat runs to avoid Adare, once it's bypassed these will all try and use the new road - thereby increasing traffic levels on an already overcapacity road.

    If we are building a motorway from Gort to Tuam then we surely have the cop on to realise that a motorway is also required here.

    I totally agree, my jaw nearly dropped when I saw that presentation on YouTube, no way type 2 is adequate, it's got to be motorway realistically, Adare is so busy and the traffic volumes are so high. At least we know for certain the Ringaskiddy road will indeed be a motorway, though.


Advertisement