Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

N52 - Tullamore to Kilbeggan (M6) [route options published]

2

Comments



  • What's ws2




  • Wide Super 2. A previous standard for single carriageway and the widest/best. New single carriageways are at most Super 2, which is narrower.

    Edit: I stand corrected. It means Wide Single 2 lane.




  • WS2 generally seems to be the same overall width of 2+2; meaning many WS2 roads potentially can be converted to 2+2; as long as they aren't riddled with side entrances, private accesses etc.

    Like the N20 between Cork and Mallow, for example.




  • SeanW wrote: »
    Wide Super 2. A previous standard for single carriageway and the widest/best. New single carriageways are at most Super 2, which is narrower.

    I never knew it meant "Wide Super 2-lane". I always thought it meant "Wide Single 2-Lane".




  • WS2 = wise/single/2 lane
    Wide S2 is 2.7m wider than normal Type 1 SC

    Wide S2 = 15m wide, 2+2 is 16.5m wide.


  • Advertisement


  • marno21 wrote: »
    WS2 = wise/single/2 lane
    Wide S2 is 2.7m wider than normal Type 1 SC

    Wide S2 = 15m wide, 2+2 is 16.5m wide.

    Aye, that's what I thought.

    Cheers Marno.




  • Aye, that's what I thought.

    Cheers Marno.
    With those figures 2+2 is an absolute no brainer, 10% extra landtake for 2 extra lanes.

    It's a good thing in retrospect that the amount of WS2 built in the 2000s was relatively small in the finish vs what was proposed in the Roads Needs Study. It really is a waste of tarmac expanding a road from 6m to 15m with no extra lanes, and the fact that many WS2 schemes are similar in characteristic to runways means the speed on them is lethal, and no barrier to prevent head on collisions. And that's before you take all the overtaking into consideration.

    The upgrading of many legacy WS2s such as the N20 Croom bypass, Mallow-Cork, Jamestown/Drumsna bypass etc over the coming years will be most welcome.




  • Agreed. They are well known to be desperately dangerous, partly because the extremely wide road gives you a very bad sense of speed and hence, distance to the oncoming car that you know in your heart is perfectly far enough away to pass the slowpoke in front of you but of course it isn't and now you have a 200+kmh closing speed.




  • All those saying WS2 is dangerous never cycled on 2+2....




  • All those saying WS2 is dangerous never cycled on 2+2....

    Fair point, however, this should prove that alternative cycling/pedestrian routes should be mandatory with 2+2s.


  • Advertisement


  • Once theyre built to international best practice, Dutch interurban cycle ways are 4m, and 2m for walking








  • Is 2 plus 2 a, dual carriage way




  • kala85 wrote: »
    Is 2 plus 2 a, dual carriage way
    Traffic volumes would signal a 2+2 from end to end. With no real need for intermediate junctions it shouldn't be a too hefty scheme




  • Route options to be published in Q4.




  • Option 2 (purple) is the obvious route. Is this intended to be 2+2? I would have thought single carriageway would suffice, spending some money removing some roundabouts at the southern end of the Tulamore Bypass would be more beneficial.




  • Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Option 2 (purple) is the obvious route. Is this intended to be 2+2? I would have thought single carriageway would suffice, spending some money removing some roundabouts at the southern end of the Tulamore Bypass would be more beneficial.

    I agree. I drive along that stretch regularly from Kilbeggan and taking the N80 to Carlow. The stretch due to be replaced is the best section of the route by far.

    Better junctions at the Portarlington road and n80 crossing would be a better investment.




  • Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Option 2 (purple) is the obvious route. Is this intended to be 2+2? I would have thought single carriageway would suffice, spending some money removing some roundabouts at the southern end of the Tulamore Bypass would be more beneficial.

    Single carriage way us already at capacity at peak times, I believe the current traffic volumes already meet the criteria for 2+2 so a good bet it will be that.

    Option 3 looks better to me TBH




  • It's gonna be dual, TII confirmed it previously.


  • Advertisement


  • Silly decision, Tullamore to Portlaoise is in far worse nick.




  • Silly decision, Tullamore to Portlaoise is in far worse nick.

    Agreed but a much longer route, but I do find it curious that there doesn't seem to be anything even in the long term plans for this road despite it being a national route and in poor condition




  • Yeah... even an N52 to M7 route that means you don't have to plough through the outskirts of Portlaoise.




  • Agreed but a much longer route, but I do find it curious that there doesn't seem to be anything even in the long term plans for this road despite it being a national route and in poor condition

    Too long. I can't recall an upgrade anywhere near that length on a secondary road.

    If it ain't gonna happen on the N81 which leads to Dublin it won't happen in the Midlands




  • Too long. I can't recall an upgrade anywhere near that length on a secondary road.

    If it ain't gonna happen on the N81 which leads to Dublin it won't happen in the Midlands

    Yes ,what is been done is only 10 km and the tullamore to portlaois is around 20 km ,maybe in 20 to 30 years it will get done coz it would be a nice link from the m7 /m8 to the m6 and even the m4




  • steeler j wrote: »
    Yes ,what is been done is only 10 km and the tullamore to portlaois is around 20 km ,maybe in 20 to 30 years it will get done coz it would be a nice link from the m7 /m8 to the m6 and even the m4

    30 kms actually, but I do believe there is some movement expected next year on a Mountmellick bypass, I've no idea on the scale of that TBH but there was something on the local Loais press last year about it




  • 30 kms actually, but I do believe there is some movement expected next year on a Mountmellick bypass, I've no idea on the scale of that TBH but there was something on the local Loais press last year about it
    Thanks ,I was trying to remember what it was




  • Given how short the road will be, does it really make sense for Tullamore to Kilbeggan to be 2+2? It would have the same 100km/h speedlimit as a single carriageway so no reduction in journey time and I would wonder about any safety improvement. The 2+2 would likely lead to more speeding generally and people not familiar with it could unexpectedly find themselves at a roundabout and have to slam on the breaks. Also the 2+2 would surely require yet another roundabout at Tullamore, or some form of GSJ, to serve the to be bypassed section of existing N52 whereas a single carriageway road can have a well designed T junction.




  • Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Given how short the road will be, does it really make sense for Tullamore to Kilbeggan to be 2+2? It would have the same 100km/h speedlimit as a single carriageway so no reduction in journey time and I would wonder about any safety improvement. The 2+2 would likely lead to more speeding generally and people not familiar with it could unexpectedly find themselves at a roundabout and have to slam on the breaks. Also the 2+2 would surely require yet another roundabout at Tullamore, or some form of GSJ, to serve the to be bypassed section of existing N52 whereas a single carriageway road can have a well designed T junction.

    Well, this particular stretch is a multiplex of the N52 and the N80, and AADTs are close to, if not at the threshold for 2+2.

    It means you'll be much more likely to be able to achieve an average of 100km/h, which is currently impossible if you get stuck behind a slow-moving vehicle.


  • Advertisement


  • Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Given how short the road will be, does it really make sense for Tullamore to Kilbeggan to be 2+2? It would have the same 100km/h speedlimit as a single carriageway so no reduction in journey time and I would wonder about any safety improvement. The 2+2 would likely lead to more speeding generally and people not familiar with it could unexpectedly find themselves at a roundabout and have to slam on the breaks. Also the 2+2 would surely require yet another roundabout at Tullamore, or some form of GSJ, to serve the to be bypassed section of existing N52 whereas a single carriageway road can have a well designed T junction.



    The average traffic counts are over 14000 so if you’re designing and building a road it would make sense to go 2+2. There is a short stretch of wide new build single approaching the roundabouts at Kilbeggan and at Tullamore which were designed for conversion to 2+2. There will be no need for any intermediate junctions between M6 and Tullamore. The old bypassed n52 will rejoin its old route into town via Arden.


Advertisement