The Tourist Route Schemes (National Secondaries)

Sponge Bob

Well you might need a parallel cycleway to the N59 given the racing bikers and triathletes in Galway need some space too. Not so many of them in Kerry. Be careful what you wish for

galwaycyclist

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Well you might need a parallel cycleway to the N59 given the racing bikers and triathletes in Galway need some space too. Not so many of them in Kerry. Be careful what you wish for

The "roadies" would be most unlikely to use such a thing if constucted and maintained to Irish standards. Most of them would laugh at the idea. All you are doing is setting out to create avoidable conflict with motorists. Put in a hard shoulder and there is some chance of it being used.

antoobrien

http://www.galwaynews.ie/28836-moycullen-bypass-gets-go-ahead-no-provision-funding

Plans for the long awaited Moycullen bypass have finally been given the go-ahead but there is no provision for the funding cost of up to 30 million euro

An Bord Pleanala have granted permission subject to six conditions.

These include that the road development is carried out in accordance to drawings and documentation and the oral hearing.

They also stipulate that the proposed Lough Kip River Bridge, which will replace an existing bridge structure be finished in stone.

They further stipulate that should the time between the date of this order and the commencement of construction exceed 36 months, a pre-construction budget survey be undertaken.

This is in the interests of ecological conservation.

Local TD Sean Kyne says this is real progress in this long awaited project but points out there is no funding provision as yet.

The Fine Gael TD says he be will lobbying for the approach road to be done first by the National Roads Authority.

Will add ABP links if/when I find them

Edit: Details will be published on ABP website next week

munchkin_utd

antoobrien wrote: »

http://www.galwaynews.ie/28836-moycullen-bypass-gets-go-ahead-no-provision-funding
Will add ABP links if/when I find them
Edit: Details will be published on ABP website next week

whats the need for this project in particular?

Is there heavy industry meaning disproportional amount of trucks/ crazy traffic all day and chronic traffic at peak (akin to say Claregalway or Adare) that justifies a bypass or is it simply one of the "nice to have" projects where planning was initiated during the boom when money was no object and now its coming to fruition and getting approved.

Chris_5339762

Moycullen always was a blackspot and I seem to remember Spongey saying it was holding up €250million of wind turbines as the bridge wasn't wide enough. Probably not a bad thing, I hate those

Edit: I'd heard that Moycullen was to be 2+2, is this still true?

antoobrien

munchkin_utd wrote: »

whats the need for this project in particular?

Is there heavy industry meaning disproportional amount of trucks/ crazy traffic all day and chronic traffic at peak (akin to say Claregalway or Adare) that justifies a bypass or is it simply one of the "nice to have" projects where planning was initiated during the boom when money was no object and now its coming to fruition and getting approved.

There's a big hint in the title - tourist route schemes. Moycullen is the main gateway to Connemara.


Is it as big a problem as Clareglaway - traffic wise no, access wise yes. Part of the reason for the bypass is the narrow roads and poor bridge on the way into the village. In some respects the situation is similar to the bridge at Slane, but not nearly as dangerous. Certain large loads, which are of strategic interest to the country have trouble getting past Moycullen, so in the long run it may well be more important than either of Claregalway or Adare.

AFAIK it'll also help the development of the Connemara Greenway, but I know almost nothing about that so I'm open to correction.

BTW - this is an ABP decision - there's no funding associated with this announcement.

Sponge Bob

munchkin_utd wrote: »

whats the need for this project in particular?

Windfarms. They cannot get them past the bridge on the Lough Kip river east of Moycullen.

antoobrien

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Edit: I'd heard that Moycullen was to be 2+2, is this still true?

Not according to what's in the EIS. The project documentation is available from Galway Co Co Website.

The main elements of the proposed road development include the following:
• 4.3km of National Secondary Road comprising a Type 1 Single Carriageway, in accordance with the cross-section details outlined in NRA TD 27/07. This and the other relevant cross-sections are summarised in Table ES 2 below.
• 4.7km of local road improvements/realignments including the realignment of the Knockferry road over a distance of approx. 0.85km and upgrading the south east access from the proposed roundabout to the outskirts of the village for a distance of approx. 1.3km;
• 1.7km of farm/ accommodation roads;
• 2 no. at-grade roundabouts;
• 8 structures comprising 5 bridges (including 1 bridge over the proposed N59, 2 bridges over the canal, 1 bridge carrying the proposed N59 over the Lough Kip River and a replacement of the existing bridge on the N59 over the Lough Kip River), 2 underpasses and 1 Culvert;
• 5.8km of footway/cycleway;
• Fencing, Drainage and Landscaping Works;
• Environmental Mitigation Measures;
• Utilities and Service Diversion Works;
• Public lighting will be provided in the vicinity of both roundabouts, along the realigned Knockferry Road and improved village access.
• Accommodation Works; and
• All other ancillary Work

galwaycyclist

N86 Decision now up on the Cyclist.ie website

Cyclists welcome rejection by An Board Pleanala of controversial Kerry N86 road design

Cyclist.ie, Ireland’s National Cycling Network and Lobby Group has welcomed An Bord Pleanala’s rejection of a controversial National Roads Authority (NRA) scheme for the N86 in the Dingle peninsula. The road upgrade scheme running from Camp to Dingle had attracted particular concern because the designers planned to co-locate a tourist cycling path directly beside high speed traffic for the entire length of the scheme (28km).

The cyclists are hailing the decision as a vindication of the Failte Ireland tourism strategy and National Cycle Policy Framework (Department of Transport, 2009) which is to avoid busy roads. The rejection of the NRA design calls into question (1) other routes of the same design elsewhere and (2) the NRA’s role in delivering vital cycling infrastructure

Full story here
http://www.cyclist.ie/2012/11/cyclists-welcome-rejection-by-an-board-pleanala-of-controversial-kerry-n86-road-design/

Chris_5339762

antoobrien wrote: »

Not according to what's in the EIS. The project documentation is available from Galway Co Co Website.

Thanks.

I'd heard a rumour than in an ideal world, Moycullen(2+2) + Galway to Moycullen(2+2) + Galway bypass approved section would be bundled as a PPP.

antoobrien

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Thanks.

I'd heard a rumour than in an ideal world, Moycullen(2+2) + Galway to Moycullen(2+2) + Galway bypass approved section would be bundled as a PPP.

That bit in bold tells me whomever you were talking to was hoping this would be the case, rather than relaying information.

That said if (and a big if) the GCOB goes ahead there will be substantial local road re-alignments and improvements on the roads leading to jucntions, so it's possible that the N59 will be widened (but I don't think that is specified in the plans).

Sponge Bob

The thinking is to send the Coast road traffic across to Barna from the N59 by upgrading the road across the mountain as a part 8 (or as part 8s) , dunno how far the thinking is going but I did recommend this as an alternative to the 'bog cotton' section.

This requires 2+2 from HERE to the Bypass, c.3km retrofitted. I heard nothing of any 2+2 west of that point on the N59.

traleespud

From Radio Kerry report today......

N86 plan could be delayed by 20 years if refused by An Bord Pleanala
Monday, November 19th, 2012 at 1:52 pm.

Any major upgrade to a west Kerry road would be delayed by up to 20 years if An Bord Pleanala turns down plans by Kerry County Council.

That’s according to the authority’s Director of Roads Charlie O’Sullivan who was speaking about the N86 project at the council’s monthly meeting.

Mr O’Sullivan said he would be very disappointed if An Bord Pleanala refused to grant permission for the plan.

The planning appeals board held an oral hearing earlier this year into the 65 million euro project to upgrade 28 kilometres of the N86 between Dingle, Annascaul and Gortbreagoge to Camp.

After consideration An Bord Pleanala ordered Kerry County Council to return to the drawing board and remove cycleways from the plan and reduce the width of the proposed alignment.

Following a question from Councillor Seamus Cosaí Fitzgearld at the monthly council meeting, Director of Roads Charlie O’Sullivan said they are seeking advice both legal and from the National Roads Authority before making their submission to An Bord Pleanala.

He said a similar project was approved in Donegal by the board.

Mr O’Sullivan added the suggestion to use part of the Dingle way for cyclists was being considered but some parts of this were not suitable.

Meanwhile, councillors voted in favour of extinguishing public rights of way in several townlands as part of the Annascaul to Gortbreagoe Road Improvement Scheme on which work is continuing.

Cleahaigh

galwaycyclist wrote: »

N86 Decision now up on the Cyclist.ie website





Full story here
http://www.cyclist.ie/2012/11/cyclists-welcome-rejection-by-an-board-pleanala-of-controversial-kerry-n86-road-design/

Ludicrous decision. What about the pedestrians for a start? So the Board are requesting that a minimal 7m wide carriageway be constructed with no facilities for vulnerable road users whatsoever and some idiotic dribble about using the chaotic mess of back roads as some half arsed alternative. It's as philosophically rigorous as demanding the removal of footpaths from O'Connell Street because the pedestrians should use the quieter back streets. I assume the Cyclist Organisation and An Bord Pleanála have good lawyers and insurance because when the first pedestrian dies you'll be paying your share.

Sponge Bob

No they are not. The 7m carriageway has no room for pedestrians and cyclists. Galwaycyclist expresses a preference for one 'multiuse' carriageway but the only approved design with space for cyclists and pedestrians is Type 1.

Type 2 to my mind has hard shoulders that are too narrow. You could go with a 'special constrained' Type 1 by narrowing the lanes to 3.5m from 3.65m I suppose, Type 1 squeezed or else Type 2 extra wide ( with wider shoulders) . However these geometires are also optimised for 100kph running while Type 3 is for 80kph really.

See posts further up for links to road geometries. It would be helpful were Galwaycyclist to suggest a geometry as a variant of either Type 1 or Type 2 given their preference expressed above.

galwaycyclist

Sponge Bob wrote: »

No they are not. The 7m carriageway has no room for pedestrians and cyclists. Galwaycyclist expresses a preference for one 'multiuse' carriageway but the only approved design with space for cyclists and pedestrians is Type 1.

Type 2 to my mind has hard shoulders that are too narrow. You could go with a 'special constrained' Type 1 by narrowing the lanes to 3.5m from 3.65m I suppose, Type 1 squeezed or else Type 2 extra wide ( with wider shoulders) . However these geometires are also optimised for 100kph running while Type 3 is for 80kph really.

See posts further up for links to road geometries. It would be helpful were Galwaycyclist to suggest a geometry as a variant of either Type 1 or Type 2 given their preference expressed above.

The use of hard shoulders was suggested at the hearing and it was included (IIRC) in the Cyclist.ie closing submission. It was pointed out that there were established well understood road standards that the board could specify as an alternative to the disputed new NRA guidelines.

galwaycyclist

Cleahaigh wrote: »

Ludicrous decision. What about the pedestrians for a start? So the Board are requesting that a minimal 7m wide carriageway be constructed with no facilities for vulnerable road users whatsoever and some idiotic dribble about using the chaotic mess of back roads as some half arsed alternative. It's as philosophically rigorous as demanding the removal of footpaths from O'Connell Street because the pedestrians should use the quieter back streets. I assume the Cyclist Organisation and An Bord Pleanála have good lawyers and insurance because when the first pedestrian dies you'll be paying your share.

The board havent specified any such thing. The use of back roads as cycling routes is standard practice. The international Eurovelo cycling network makes extensive use.of.minor rural roads.

Edit: I should also point out that if O'Connell street's main function was to move through-traffic at 100 km/h there would be a prima facie case for using parallel quiet roads as.alternative routes for walking and cycling. Especially for recreational users.

Cleahaigh

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The board havent specified any such thing. The use of back roads as cycling routes is standard practice. The international Eurovelo cycling network makes extensive use.of.minor rural roads.

Edit: I should also point out that if O'Connell street's main function was to move through-traffic at 100 km/h there would be a prima facie case for using parallel quiet roads as.alternative routes for walking and cycling. Especially for recreational users.

That is precisely what they have specified. Have you not actually read their letter?

Appropriate minor backroads. Is that the case here? I'll get back to it at the weekend. The 100km/h speed limit waffle is a complete, and pathetic, red herring. But I'll get back to that too.

galwaycyclist

Cleahaigh wrote: »

That is precisely what they have specified. Have you not actually read their letter?

Appropriate minor backroads. Is that the case here? I'll get back to it at the weekend. The 100km/h speed limit waffle is a complete, and pathetic, red herring. But I'll get back to that too.

ABP Letter
https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/114588/228205.pdf

I suggest you read it again. Nowhere do they specify that the road must be 7m wide as alleged by you. Nor does it state anywhere that the needs of vulnerable road users should not be recognised in the final design.

Sponge Bob

Are you out at the Clifden hearing next? week GC??

galwaycyclist

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Are you out at the Clifden hearing next? week GC??

Yes

Jack breen

Work has commenced on the N56 Mountcharles to Inver stretch.

L1011

Jack breen wrote: »

Work has commenced on the N56 Mountcharles to Inver stretch.

That isn't part of the tourist route scheme, much older NRA project. Chronically badly needed though.

I wasn't aware it had been tendered for - are DCC doing the works themselves? They've got a reputation for taking an unreasonable amount of time when they do this (works further up the N56 and on the R262 come to mind)

Sponge Bob

Work as in Diggers digging or perhaps just some Fencing???

Land acquisition for this scheme completed this year and the fencing tender issued in August,

http://www.tendersdirect.com/Search/Tenders/Expired.aspx?ID=%20000000003837648&sect=T088&cat=15&Source=Categories

This advance works contract includes the following:- erection of the approx. 7km of permanent fencing- erection of approx. 2km of temporary fencing- erection of approx. 50 agricultural gates,- hedgerow and tree removal associated with the fencing- construction of associated field accesses approx 3- construction of approx. 7 culvert crossings- the establishment, maintenence and removal of traffic management will also be required at some locations.within landholdings as part of the Mountcharles to Inver Road scheme.This advance works contract also includes the following:- erection of the approx 890m of permanent fencing- erection of approx. 120m of temporary fencing- erection of approx 6 agricultural gates,- hedgerow and tree removal associated with the fencing-

The road itself would cost perhaps €6m more. A badly needed scheme this ( well the Mountcharles - Frosses Road bit at the very least) and I would not gripe were that short section alone to be dealt with .......finally. Has to be in the "50 worst bends" on N roads that I can think of.

They also tendered out the Bats on Asbestos problem.

marmurr1916

galwaycyclist wrote: »

N86 Decision now up on the Cyclist.ie website





Full story here
http://www.cyclist.ie/2012/11/cyclists-welcome-rejection-by-an-board-pleanala-of-controversial-kerry-n86-road-design/

The ABP ruling has been overturned by the High Court.

It seems that the N86 will eventually see an upgrade to 28km of Type 3 single-carriageway, including bicycle lanes and a hard margin:

A failure by An Bord Pleanala to consider the needs of cyclists and pedestrians when refusing permission for a major road widening scheme extending 28km between Tralee and Daingean (Dingle) in Co Kerry has led to a High Court order overturning that refusal.

The Board, in its relatively new capacity as a roads authority, failed to consider the needs of cyclists and pedestrians when rejecting Kerry County Council’s scheme to widen and straighten a 28km stretch of the busy N86 and include cycleways on both sides, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said.

...

He was upholding the Council’s challenge to the Board’s September 2013 rejection of permission for the N86 scheme, including a cycleway on each side of the road, plus a hard margin for maintenance and pedestrian use. A 5km stretch of the road already has a fenced off cycleway.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/bord-pleanala-failed-to-consider-cyclists-in-kerry-road-ruling-1.1759410

L1011

Has the chance for EU funding been lost due to the delay I wonder? There was a definite time limit on them initially.

antoobrien

The tender for archaeological & test excavations for the Moycullen Bypass has been announced by Galway Co Co.

The tender information is available on etenders.

Separately there has been €2.9m allocated to the project by the council (happened back in February) as part of the Gawlay Co Co Roads programme for 2014.

annfield1978

Wills to commence construction on the 1st Demceber on 1.4km online section of the N59 which forms part of the N59 Moycullen Bypass Scheme

Poster King

Is this starting today? Is it the bit on the Galway side of Moycullen?

annfield1978

yes, includes the replacement / widening of the Clydagh Bridge over the Kip River