NRA to scrap 2+1 roads or not?

mike65

Anyone just hear it declared that the NRA are to scape 2+1s after a safety review or somesuch? I heard on a different station that the NRA deny any such thing.

Confused.

Mike.

Victor

mike65 wrote:

scape

Scrap?

MrPudding

I quite lke 2 + 1 road but I have to say, the thought of the majority of irish drivers using them filled me with dread. Recipe for disaster TBH. Let try and get a hang of the basics first, you know stopping at red lights and stuff like that, before we move onto the fancy stuff like lane discipline where peoples lives might depend on it.

MrP

markpb

I saw a story in one of the weekend papers saying they were considering scrapping the system for new roads because of peoples tendancies to race along the last few meters of the overtaking lane and then bully people into letting them back in. Said it worked quite well in Sweden but not here apparently.

I was shocked

Capt'n Midnight

in the UK they are seen as dangerous where two become one. Then again a speed camera at that point to pick up speeders / people driving on white hatched lines ( one penalty point IIRC ) should sort that out.

They can't be more dangerous than a national primary route reduced to 70kph by some dithery driver who slows down further on bad bends and continues at 70kph through resedential areas so you can't pass then safely or legally.

fricatus

markpb wrote:

...because of peoples tendancies to race along the last few meters of the overtaking lane and then bully people into letting them back in.

Hehe, typical - and why, whenever I close my eyes and picture the scene, do I always see the words "LAND CRUISER"?

But surely to God if there's a level of traffic that has people bullying and forcing their way in at the end of the two-lane section, then a proper dual carriageway is warranted.

fricatus

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

They can't be more dangerous than a national primary route reduced to 70kph by some dithery driver who slows down further on bad bends and continues at 70kph through resedential areas so you can't pass then safely or legally.

Oh God, the one-speed driver! And when they're taking a bend, they always brake (suddenly and heavily) to slow down. Did nobody ever tell them that all they need to do when slowing down is just to ease up on the gas, and then just maybe touch the brakes very lightly?

markpb

fricatus wrote:

Hehe, typical - and why, whenever I close my eyes and picture the scene, do I always see the words "LAND CRUISER"?

But surely to God if there's a level of traffic that has people bullying and forcing their way in at the end of the two-lane section, then a proper dual carriageway is warranted.

You answered your own question there. It's got nothing to do with the level of traffic and everything to do with ignorant drivers who think they're in a hurry and more important than everyone else.

gjim

The reason drivers go mental on them is because they are generally way too short, they often start on a uphill section (slowing initial accelleration) and they are so rare that idiots act like it's their VERY LAST OPPORTUNITY EVER to overtake the slower driver in front. They are inconsistently implemented; sometimes there's a "slow lane" which appears to your left while other times, sometimes there's an overtaking lane which appears to your right.

If implemented consistently and properly, I think they'd be great. They'd improve safety by allowing the safe overtaking of long vehicles like trucks and buses which, let's face it, are effectively impossible to overtake legally as high speed is required to clear their length quickly and safely. Many of our N roads are already wide enough to accommodate them with a very cheap upgrade and they'd be particularly welcome on N routes which don't carry enough vehicles to justify dualing.

Victor

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

They can't be more dangerous than a national primary route reduced to 70kph by some dithery driver who slows down further on bad bends

Should these people speed up on bad bends and slow down on the straights?

RadioCity

They are inconsistently implemented

Its that inconsistency that annoys me about the roads in the Republic Ireland.
In Northern Ireland, while having a whole raft of names (acceleration lane, 2+1, crawler lane, overtaking lane) all operate with the same principle, and that is the right hand lane (overtaking lane) merges into the left at the end, NEVER the other way round. The words "Fast Lane" and "Slow Lane" are never used on signage.

Interestingly, theres a sign at the bottom of the Ballymacilroy hill (the A5 hill section just after Ballygawley northbound) which states: "Keep to the left lane except for overtaking". A very succint message that should be a standard piece of signage.

corktina

my experiance of the N22 section Mallow to Cork is that the 2 lane sections are way to short....about two cars manage to get through.Also many of the two lane sections are downhill which is plain stupid. Over m,ost of its length there would have been room for two lanes in each direction

The other one i have experiance of is the one outside Carrig on Suir which has much longer 2 lane sections, is much flatter and is altogether better....BUT is practically empty which makes it pointless....

Bards

corktina wrote:

my experiance of the N22 section Mallow to Cork is that the 2 lane sections are way to short....about two cars manage to get through.Also many of the two lane sections are downhill which is plain stupid. Over m,ost of its length there would have been room for two lanes in each direction

The other one i have experiance of is the one outside Carrig on Suir which has much longer 2 lane sections, is much flatter and is altogether better....BUT is practically empty which makes it pointless....

The reason the NRA made this 2+1 was not about helping traffic flow faster but to stop the amount of fatal accidents on this road caused by right hand turning manoeuvres. Therefore your statement that because it is empty (in your opinion)is a fallacy

bk

corktina wrote:

The other one i have experiance of is the one outside Carrig on Suir which has much longer 2 lane sections, is much flatter and is altogether better....BUT is practically empty which makes it pointless....

Actually because it is empty makes it exactly the right sort of road to use it on.

It is not meant to be used on busy roads where DC would be better like in Cork, it is supposed to be used on quiet (typically country) roads, where it gives you the opportunity to safely overtake the odd slower vehicle (like a tractor) that you might come up against.

markpb

(c) Ireland.com

The National Roads Authority has decided not to use a "2+1" road design for an upgrade of more than 850km of national roads.

The system is designed to eradicate head-on crashes by providing overtaking lanes at 2km intervals in a bid to curb driver frustration and has been piloted on three national routes over the past two years.

The "2+1" layout has two lanes in one direction, and one in the opposite. The two-lane section is a safe overtaking zone and alternates with the one-lane section at intervals of around two kilometres with a barrier separating traffic. Separating lanes of oncoming traffic is one of the recommendations in a draft of the new Road Safety Strategy 2007 to 2011.

However, the NRA found that there was a tendency for drivers to accelerate to try and pass traffic just before the double-lane section switched and that this was a hazard.

A cost-benefit analysis also showed that an upgrade on a single carriageway national route to a 2+2 - with two lanes in each direction separated by a central barrier cost - between 10 to 15 per cent more than a 2+1 format.

Because the 2+2 arrangement can also carry more traffic at 20,000 vehicles per day, compared to 14,000 for a 2+1, the NRA has decided to use this design layout as the basis for the widening of almost 850km of single carriageway national roads.

[snip....]

niall2j

http://www.radioireland.ie/lastword/2372007-16.wmv

Last Word segment on the 2+1 / 2+2's (begins about 10min30sec in). For the premium of 10-15% it seems to me like a good solution and probably cheaper that trying to enforce speed cameras or other anti-dangerous driving measures at the end of the 2km segments on the 2+1's.

MLM

niall2j wrote:

http://www.radioireland.ie/lastword/2372007-16.wmv

Last Word segment on the 2+1 / 2+2's (begins about 10min30sec in). For the premium of 10-15% it seems to me like a good solution and probably cheaper that trying to enforce speed cameras or other anti-dangerous driving measures at the end of the 2km segments on the 2+1's.

It looks like the NRA is going to do away with the HQDC. The 2+2 sounds similar to a British dual carriageway. They are also trying to enact legislation to upgrade most of he existing HQDC's to motorway.

Mayo Exile

Also on the front of the Motoring supplement of today's Irish Times (25 July) for those who need to see the print copy.

2+1 systems are definitely treated as a racetrack near their end by Irish drivers. There is a partial one west of Strokestown on the N5. It works in the westbound direction only. The amount of times you see drivers in desperate bids of overtaking (even undertaking once!) towards the end of it is worrying! 2+2 better if it can be afforded. 2+2's are basically DC's without hard shoulders aren't they?

Chris_533976

So what we're saying is they're scrapping 2+1s (good, I hate them and agree with all the negativity in this thread), and replacing their plans with DCs. When they get to capacity also they're a nightmare as each 2 into 1 bit jams up.

I dont like how they're calling them 2+2s though. Does that effectively mean at-grade DC with median crossings???? Or full DC?? Need more infos

Chris_533976

Just seen this in the full version of the above article. NOT good IMO.

The 2+2 road layout differs from a standard dual carriageway in that it does not have a hard shoulder.

Zoney

The lack of hard shoulder was what I found worrying about 2+1. To hear that they intend to have 2+2 instead doesn't fill me with confidence - it'll merely allow people to drive faster - fair enough, but without space for breakdowns, emergency manoeuvres, etc. it's asking for trouble.

Happy Bertie

I would say that every 500m they could provide a turnout (as they're called in the States) This gives a person with a flat tire the chance to get off the mainline. An alternative would be to use of the verge for emergency pulloff.

Also my understanding was that the original 2+1 road plan would have continuous barrier except for special u-turns and LILO (left in left out turns) for access to minor roads and properties. I'm not sure what the plan for major junctions was. Maybe large roundabouts, eventhough a cheap diamond underpass interchange would be more freeflow for the 2+2 mainline and hopefully not cost too much more.

Below is the NRA document on 2+1 road which came out a few years back

http://nra.ie/PublicationsResources/DownloadableDocumentation/GeneralPublications/file,799,en.PDF

I will say that I'm delighted that they're taking this approach as it would give more certainty to journey times as on slow tractor or car will not slow everyone else down.

gjim

I've never understood the fixation with having 5 metres of hard shoulder on either side of a single lane road in this country. It's extremely wasteful given it's only there for contingency. With 2+2, you have the same contingency in case of an accident but you get double the capacity during normal (99.99% of the time) operation. I've driven thousands of miles on 2+2 on the continent and the lack of a hard shoulder is simply not an issue. There are short lay-bys every couple of km where you can stop or where breakdowns are towed to. It's not like if an accident occurs on a 1+1 with hard shoulders that the traffic can continue normally anyway.

Hard shoulders contribute their share of safety issues too. For example, slower vehicles seem to be expected to pull in to them to allow faster vehicles to pass them. All fine and dandy until the slower vehicle rounds a corner in the shoulder only to find a stationary vehicle meanwhile a fast vehicle has started passing in the main carriageway.

And no I don't expect the 2+2 to be fully grade separated. If you want a dual carriageway with grade separated junctions, hard shoulders, extra wide lanes, etc. then you are talking motorway. No country in the world builds motorways everywhere.

Motorway for the major inter-urban routes and 2+2 for the rest of the N network is perfectly sensible.

dmeehan

Zoney wrote:

The lack of hard shoulder was what I found worrying about 2+1. To hear that they intend to have 2+2 instead doesn't fill me with confidence - it'll merely allow people to drive faster - fair enough, but without space for breakdowns, emergency manoeuvres, etc. it's asking for trouble.

i have been stuck on the cork 2+1 twice, each time when a lorry broke down.

took ages to clear the gridlock as drivers had nowhere to go, stuck in between the crash barrier/fence on one side and the diutch on the other

Niall1234

I've had an expierience of a car doing 80 kph going into the fast lane on the 2+1 on the Mallow road.

Some people just don't have a clue of the rules of the road. fast lane hogging being by far the worst.

Solair

Good, clear signage telling people how long they have to wait until there's a passing lane might help.

Irish road authorities are not known for their excellent use of signs that's for sure.

In fact, there are times I wonder if the people who lay out some of the signage ought to be sent off for psychological evaluation. Some of it just makes no sense at all!

Chris_533976

I will say the signage along the N20 2+1 is pretty good. Its simple, but clear and easy to understand.

corktina

Bards wrote:

The reason the NRA made this 2+1 was not about helping traffic flow faster but to stop the amount of fatal accidents on this road caused by right hand turning manoeuvres. Therefore your statement that because it is empty (in your opinion)is a fallacy[/QUOT

eh?

tampopo

gjim wrote:

It's not like if an accident occurs on a 1+1 with hard shoulders that the traffic can continue normally anyway.

I agree with you here.

Bards

corktina wrote:

Bards wrote:

The reason the NRA made this 2+1 was not about helping traffic flow faster but to stop the amount of fatal accidents on this road caused by right hand turning manoeuvres. Therefore your statement that because it is empty (in your opinion)is a fallacy[/QUOT

eh?

please see

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/2001/1215/journal_2/index.html - from 2001

http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=5535&lang=ENG&loc=1714 - from 2004

http://www.munster-express.ie/060113/news1.html - from Jan 2006

and finally

http://www.waterford-today.ie/index.php?id=18950&what=1&issue=311 - July 2006
(8 fatalities since it opened)


after reading these reports, do you still hold the view thta becuase it is a light trafficed road (your opinion) that this is not needed

corktina

please dont tell me what my views are; a 1+1 would have suited the purpose you claim the road was built for....

spacetweek

There is an international perspective on 2+1 here: Skyscraper City
It's kinda sad that 2+1s don't seem to work in Ireland. They're a road type that require discipline and dare I say it this discipline is probably forthcoming in better organised countries like Sweden and Germany, but not here.

MLM wrote:

It looks like the NRA is going to do away with the HQDC. The 2+2 sounds similar to a British dual carriageway. They are also trying to enact legislation to upgrade most of he existing HQDC's to motorway.

It doesn't look like that at all. The 2+2s are replacing 2+1s, not HQDCs. Presumably all HQDCs will still go ahead as-is - the article doesn't say anything about HQDCs.

Chris_533976 wrote:

I dont like how they're calling them 2+2s though. Does that effectively mean at-grade DC with median crossings???? Or full DC?? Need more infos

Since 2+1s have at-grade crossings (usually roundabouts), yes, 2+2s will be at-grade DC. Since they're only programmed for national secondaries and the quieter primaries, they're probably appropriate. Remember that such roads currently are at-grade AND have only 1 lane in each direction, so this represents a major upgrade.

MLM

spacetweek wrote:

It doesn't look like that at all. The 2+2s are replacing 2+1s, not HQDCs. Presumably all HQDCs will still go ahead as-is - the article doesn't say anything about HQDCs.

Yes but the NRA have been trying to get legislation through to allow them to upgrade the majority of HQDC's to motorway standard. Most of the Inter-Urbans will probably be Motorway by 2010. Believe it or not there is more than one article on the subject. Have look at this thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055114019&referrerid=&highlight=NRA

unkel

I like 2+1 and its safer overtaking compared to 1+1. But if it only costs 10-15% more to go 2+2, then that's surely the most efficient investment for minor national roads?

parsi

What I find with the Cork - Mallow one is that the folk who go at around the 70-80 mark suddenly speed up when they see a nice 2-lane road so you've sweet all chance to overtake. Of course they then slow back down when they go back to the 1-laner.

road_high

Bards wrote:

corktina wrote:

please see

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/2001/1215/journal_2/index.html - from 2001

http://www.transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=5535&lang=ENG&loc=1714 - from 2004

http://www.munster-express.ie/060113/news1.html - from Jan 2006

and finally

http://www.waterford-today.ie/index.php?id=18950&what=1&issue=311 - July 2006
(8 fatalities since it opened)


after reading these reports, do you still hold the view thta becuase it is a light trafficed road (your opinion) that this is not needed

If memory serves me correct there were something like 6 fatal collisions on this road within a couple of years of opening. Something drastic was needed and 2+1 was a good option in my opinion. To my knowledge there have been no fatalities since it was fin last summer on he N24 Piltown bypass. So it must be working. Even though locals were out out by junction changes.

icdg

MLM wrote:

The 2+2 sounds similar to a British dual carriageway.

2+2 is a dual carrigeway. A rather low quality, at grade-junctions one by the sounds of it, but its' still a dual carrigeway if there is anything in the way of central median.

(Without the central median its S4, four lane single carriageway which is a different thing of which there are precious rare examples, there's a strech on the outskirts of Galway city but that's the only one I can think of the country).

murphaph

icdg wrote:

2+2 is a dual carrigeway. A rather low quality, at grade-junctions one by the sounds of it, but its' still a dual carrigeway if there is anything in the way of central median.

(Without the central median its S4, four lane single carriageway which is a different thing of which there are precious rare examples, there's a strech on the outskirts of Galway city but that's the only one I can think of the country).

S4 near swords too.

Yeah, it's D2. It's very high standard for the roads we're talikin about and would probably never be used on roads in the UK with such low traffic levels. They'd remain S2.

Bards

mfitzy wrote:

If memory serves me correct there were something like 6 fatal collisions on this road within a couple of years of opening. Something drastic was needed and 2+1 was a good option in my opinion. To my knowledge there have been no fatalities since it was fin last summer on he N24 Piltown bypass. So it must be working. Even though locals were out out by junction changes.

8 fatalities since it opened.... But my point exactly. these are the type of roads where 2+1 saves lives. it doesn't matter a damn if they are lightly trafficked or not, it's all about engineering roads to a safer standard to protect all road users

for example Naas Dual Carriageway was probably built at a time when there was less cars on it than the present N24

dowlingm

In fairness, Cork-Mallow was designed before 2+1 came into vogue with the media. The design flaw was that where 1 became 2 the traffic flow was into the fast lane, not the slow lane, thus requiring people to move left, something Irish drivers refuse to do. If the single lane became the slow lane it would take a deliberate lane change for the slow drivers to bog down everyone else.

jlang

I'm amused that they've decided to abandon the 2+1 experiment before the original pilot schemes are even operational. The N2 Castleblaney[SIZE=-1]/Clontibret [/SIZE]by-pass (to open soon enough) is a new build 15km road that would have given the design a better evaluation than the retro-fitted Mallow road which is/will be busy enough that it should be dual carriageway anyway.

Although I do agree with the NRA that for green field schemes the extra land take for a continuous fourth lane is probably worth the extra cost, even if the traffic numbers will never justify it. And because of generations of poor planning, a large amount of the new regional N roads will need to be through green fields parallel to the old ones.

Skyhater

jlang wrote:

I'm amused that they've decided to abandon the 2+1 experiment before the original pilot schemes are even operational. The N2 Castleblaney[SIZE=-1]/Clontibret [/SIZE]by-pass (to open soon enough) is a new build 15km road that would have given the design a better evaluation than the retro-fitted Mallow road which is/will be busy enough that it should be dual carriageway anyway.

Although I do agree with the NRA that for green field schemes the extra land take for a continuous fourth lane is probably worth the extra cost, even if the traffic numbers will never justify it. And because of generations of poor planning, a large amount of the new regional N roads will need to be through green fields parallel to the old ones.

I could never understand why the NRA decided to use the Castleblayney bypass as a 2+1 trial.
This was a brand new road, 2+1's are designed for retrofitting old roads.
The N2 is probably one of the busiest non DC primary roads, and something could have been learned if the C'Blayney bypass was made into a 2+2 road.

Also, I don't understand why they decided to put a couple of roundabouts on the road instead of grade separated junctions (like they did on the Carrickmacross by-pass, and some of the C'Blayney by-pass junctions).
The main Castleblayney junction definitely should have been grade-separated.

RadioCity

Travelling south from Monaghan, it looks to be a free flow onto the new road with a small roundabout (almost immediately) on the R184 for Ballybay and probably Clontibret.

South of 'Blayney is what is a pathetically small roundabout for the volume of traffic going to be using it. Even if grade separation wasn't happening, a lane to "bypass" the roundabout for northbound traffic would have saved the need to stop. The roundabout is effectively a traffic calming device as you will have to virtually stop at it. Word is that its due to open next month according to local rumour.

Slightly off topic but the rounabout on the south end of the Monaghan bypass looks as if its being resized to allow 2 lanes on it. Up til Tuesday it had 2 lanes on the northbound approach, not that 2 cars could even use it together. There is only one lane now. Well for the time being.

ich_verschwinde

There's nothing wrong with these 2+1 roads in my opinion.. if every N road in the country was a 2+1 then it wouldn't be that bad. if their a cheap alternative then why not? some N roads badly need upgrading, asap.. and if a 2+1 would save time then why not?
i hear they're planning a 2+1 for the N20 Buttevant, Clarleville Bypass .. (ages away yet) .. noone would complain about that.. better than been stuck behind a tractor at 10km/h and no chance of overtaking.. which often happens on this road

Chris_533976

I would complain, I thought Cork - Limerick was planned to be full grade separated dual carriageway? Where did you hear otherwise??

MLM

ich_verschwinde wrote:

There's nothing wrong with these 2+1 roads in my opinion.. if every N road in the country was a 2+1 then it wouldn't be that bad. if their a cheap alternative then why not? some N roads badly need upgrading, asap.. and if a 2+1 would save time then why not?
i hear they're planning a 2+1 for the N20 Buttevant, Clarleville Bypass .. (ages away yet) .. noone would complain about that.. better than been stuck behind a tractor at 10km/h and no chance of overtaking.. which often happens on this road

The NRA has had this stretch of road in planning for ages as a DC. 2+1 would not be suitable. It's too heavily trafficed.

Chris_533976

I do hope tho that it gets FULL dc and not this at-grade 2+2.

MLM

What with the NRA trying to bring in new legislation, it might even end up as motorway. Traffic levels certainly justify it. http://www.nra.ie/Transportation/TrafficDataCollection/TrafficCounterData/

po0k

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

They can't be more dangerous than a national primary route reduced to 70kph by some dithery driver who slows down further on bad bends and continues at 70kph through resedential areas so you can't pass then safely or legally.

They should be pulled over and shot.

Niall1234

I have one problem with 2+1.

Imagine the scenario of very very heavy traffic coming back from a match.

It would be fine when it is one lane. When it switches to two lanes, both lanes would fill up. This would then result in a massive backlog at every single point where the road goes from 2 to one lane. Essentially every few miles.

Could you imagine the traffic chaos this would cause ?

bk

ich_verschwinde wrote:

There's nothing wrong with these 2+1 roads in my opinion.. if every N road in the country was a 2+1 then it wouldn't be that bad. if their a cheap alternative then why not? some N roads badly need upgrading, asap.. and if a 2+1 would save time then why not?

Well if DC costs only 10% more then 2+1, then I'd say why not?

It looks like the old Irish mind set of penny pinching to save on just 10% now, when the 2+1's would all probably need to be upgraded later due to increasing traffic volumes and would probably cost far more then if they just went DC from the start.

Just look at the 2+1 in cork or the M50 for examples of short sighted penny pinching that costs more in the long term.

I'm glad that the NRA are starting to take the long view and building roads speced for the future, not today (see Motorways where DC's would currently do and now DC's instead of 2+1).