New Ross bypass bridge

riddlinrussell

SeanW wrote: »

Victor is correct, adding hard shoulders would not have made the bridge 50% wider per-se.

All new N roads in Ireland are built to certain standards that are updated from time to time. For example, single carriageways there's "Type 3 single" "S2" (Standard 2 lane) and so on.

With regard to dual carriageways, we have two modern standards. The first is Type 2 (the kind used here) it has narrow running lanes and no hard shoulder. These also tend to have roundabouts interrupting the main line (as these are safer than median breaks) or if grade separated junctions are provided, they are really cheap and nasty. It is often called 2+2, because, as the name implies it just has two lanes each way and really nothing more.
The other kind is Type 1, which has full hard shoulders and wider running lanes. Type 1 DC tends to have full diamond or dumbell grade separated junctions. Type 1 DC if done to a high enough standard can be designated motorway (obviously not relevant here).

So it would have been highly irregular to just add hard shoulders to a 2+2/Type 2 DC. More likely if hard shoulders were required, the decision would have been to make the dual carriageway Type 1, which would have involved not just hard shoulders but wider running lanes. As such, your 50% figure was not far off on that basis because all components of the road would have needed to be wider.


I wouldn't say that, very few on these boards if any are opposed to investing in sustainable transport, at least or especially with regards to things that are "win-win" for everyone.

My only ever problem with this thread and some of the views herein was what is the problem with this bridge? It could be that I am not a cyclist, but I understand that most cycling is short haul and within urban areas. E.g. you live in a town and cycle into the town centre. Or you live in a big city and cycle commute/travel around that.

But this bridge is nearly 5 miles from New Ross and a good 10 miles from Waterford City. And the new segment of N25/N30 is in the middle of nowhere, only useful because of its role in moving people/goods quickly over long distances by means of motor vehicle. In which it follows best international practice, like French/UK Expressways and Dutch Autoweg.

You raise some good points about Cork, which make some sense and with which I'm not disagreeing, but I just don't get what that has to do with this bridge. On a prima facie basis, it would seem to me that cyclists should be looking at New Ross and Waterford for better cycling priority/facilities in the urban areas.

And as to some of the other points raised by other posters, I just don't get that at all.

I think if anything could be taken away from this discussion it would be that the 'budget and planning and construction' for a project to move through traffic from a town like this should also incorporate sustainable transport. That wouldn't necessarily mean that there would be a cycle lane on this bridge, the idea would probably be something along the lines of, construct the bypass and on the day it opens construction begins on the planned and agreed cycle and public transport improvements on the old road through the town.

That would be rather than the suggested by some here "Ask for better transport through new ross for sustainable means now" (Not accusing anyone of being against my own idea!)

Basically any time a bypass is desired the process for getting one should automatically include planning out and then implementing the sustainable transport work to the replaced road by default.