Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

N26 Ballina Bypass

2

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,838 ✭✭✭Westernview


    Yes that ring road has been useful in diverting traffic between the N59 and Killala but it runs into housing estates at its southern end so that suggests that it isn't planned to use it as part of any future bypass.

    image.png

    I think the area is too residential as well for the existing ring road to work as a long term solution. The new link would almost need to begin somewhere further out past the Merry Monk. Only yesterday it was announced that 66 new homes are to be constructed on the Killala road. Traffic is only going to increase on this route so it would seem prudent to secure a wayleave in this area even if the link is not done in the short term. I would hope that it is influencing in some way the selection of the exact N26/N59 bypass route.

    Post edited by Westernview on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 929 ✭✭✭DumbBrunette


    This is going to ABP in Q1 2025, according to Mayo County Council.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,838 ✭✭✭Westernview


    Thanks for that. What is the predicted timescale between that and starting on site?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 929 ✭✭✭DumbBrunette


    I'm not sure if there is one but these things always progress more slowly than expected. Even if it is submitted in Q1 next year, it would probably take a year to get through ABP, then another year at least of faffing about before it's tendered, and getting from tender to construction would be at least a year too. So starting on site in 2028 is realistic, but going by the progress on other minor projects in the West, it could be much later.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,838 ✭✭✭Westernview


    Very slow indeed if that turns out to be the case. I'm sure some of those year long stages could be halved if the system was more efficient.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 96 ✭✭idi na khuy hai




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,838 ✭✭✭Westernview


    A piece from Irishcycle.com on the proposed bypasses for Ballina. I don't get why the proposed bypasses are not aligned but rather staggered onto the N59 and N26. Is this standard design practice? I would have thought they would all meet at roundabouts for better traffic flow.

    https://irishcycle.com/2024/01/30/ballina-transport-plan-reaffirms-plan-to-route-bypass-through-green-areas-of-housing-estates/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 96 ✭✭idi na khuy hai


    Absolute garbage, that. Must've been designed by Ryan and the green brigade.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 929 ✭✭✭DumbBrunette


    Ground Investigation works for the proposed N26 Ballina Bypass Phase 1. Proposed site is located south west of Ballina town centre. Works comprise trial pits, cable percussion boreholes, soil and rotary core holes and peat probing.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,838 ✭✭✭Westernview


    Mark Duffy at tonight's public consultation on the bypass proposals.

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DBhOXVDRagy/?igsh=M3phMndwMzRoMHk0



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 929 ✭✭✭DumbBrunette


    For anyone who wants to take a closer look at the maps and drawings. Hopefully they will get this in to ABP as soon as possible. It could be built in no time if the money was there.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,400 ✭✭✭markpb


    The fire and brimstone that people spew about the Greens on this forum is beyond childish.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 929 ✭✭✭DumbBrunette


    Due to go to ABP in Q1 2025. Fingers crossed for a swift approval.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,838 ✭✭✭Westernview


    Fingers crossed for sure. It's been a long wait for Ballina.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    I'd like to repeat the previous poster's comment about the lack of an overall junction between the South and North sections. That staggering of junctions is not any kind of best-practice design I've ever seen. It just seems like an oversight



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    From the official drawings, the South section (design underway) will end with a three-arm roundabout on N59. The line of the northern section is not fully defined yet, and the OpenStreetMap screenshot in the Irish Cycle is misleadingly precise, and thus grossly inaccurate: the width of the indicative corridor for Phase 2 allows that to continue directly from the terminal roundabout of Phase 1.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,838 ✭✭✭Westernview


    It may continue directly from the last roundabout but it's questionable why it has to pass so close to Hollister with a direct access from Hollister onto the road and all the traffic that will ensue at that location Surely having both bypass sections meeting further south would be a better solution with hollister traffic coming onto the existing N26 where it does now.

    Screenshot_20241206_160355_Microsoft 365 (Office).jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    I was talking about the Northern end, where Phase 1 ends, and Phase 2 begins (that map has North at the left, which I always find odd - maybe it’s a nod to medieval maps that put Jerusalem at the top :) ).

    At the southern end, in the screengrab you posted, I don’t see anything being made worse here. There’s already a direct access to the Hollister site, but at present it’s a T-junction, here:

    image.png


    Now, I don’t know the area at all, but I suspect that this arrangement creates long tailbacks on N26 when drivers try to enter the factory site. A roundabout will reduce these delays by making it easier for traffic to turn right into the site (from the south), and also turn right out of it at shift-ends (northwards, towards the town).

    That existing site-access road is within the project boundary, so I guess it’s going to be closed off and replaced by the roundabout



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    Yep two different discussions.

    I've never seen queues getting into Hollister actually, but maybe that's just luck. The queues I usually have are in town and on the Crossmolina road.

    I still maintain despite all the bellyaching I hear locally, that Ballina's traffic isn't significant. The biggest thing it needs IMO is an East-West link, not a North-South link. And I say that as someone who goes to/from Killala. I regularly hear "oh traffic is really bad" and then breeze through in less than 10 minutes.

    The town centre is just painfully full of cars too. Tone street and O'Rahilly Street and the likes seem to be crying out for some urban enhancements. A discussion for a different thread.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,838 ✭✭✭Westernview


    Apologies I thought you meant the southern end. In any case i still think it would be better to keep the bypass further south and let the Hollister traffic filter out and reduce before getting to bypass.

    I agree, the east West link was more needed but they went with the easier cheaper N-S option.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 929 ✭✭✭DumbBrunette


    This project is seen as an easy win I'd say - no bridge over the Moy SAC that could delay or scupper it.

    There are also no comments on the online consultation site, which is usually a good sign that there won't be objections.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23 Bmomoran


    Looking at the Mayo Co Co website for Ballina to Mount Falcon I see there is a discussion an latest government guidance on cross sections:


    A key recommendation relevant to the N26 Foxford to Mount Falcon project states that “All new sections of the rural road network that are to have a speed limit of over 80 km/h, which have not yet entered the planning process,
    should be designed as divided roads and include appropriate segregated provisions for pedestrians and cyclists.”

    Is a divided road a two plus two ?

    Does this mean a 2 plus 2 per s being considered again ? If so is it likely to be approved given the last time the 2 plus 2 was turned down due to over specification, lack of need and impact on environment.


    Could it be the case that we are left with a new updated road with 80km speed limit ?

    Also how likely would divided road be given Ballina to Mount Falcon and Foxford to Swinford /Ballyvary is single undivided carriageway ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Divided road means 2+2



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,778 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    The design is a 2+1 plus a segregated walking/cycling track



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,778 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    IMG_20250430_190144.jpg

    Here's a drawing



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    "It lives!!!"

    Last I had heard, 2+1 was no longer recommended for new designs, but clearly it has been resurrected with this new guidance.

    2+1 should be okay here, though... the biggest problem on the N20 2+1 is that the traffic volumes are too high for it: with fully separated junctions a 2+1 should be possible for these roads.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 929 ✭✭✭DumbBrunette


    It's interesting that type 1 single carriageway wasn't even considered an option.

    The online 'management' option is for a type 2 SC with presumably an 80 km/h speed limit, which is slower than the current road 😳



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Maybe there's a higher number of slow moving agricultural vehicles here, and a Type 1 single world encourage overtaking, thus increasing the risk of head on collision.

    That's bizarre about the management portion, though.. I can't understand how a Type 2 DC would be set at 80 km/h in any rural situation.

    Overall, though, I can't argue with the policy that all primary roads should be divided. 2+1 works well in lightly trafficked situations, 2+2 fits busier sections. As long as the median-crossing junction designs for Type 3 DC have been removed in favour of roundabouts or compact GSJs, I don't really have an issue with 2+1 for the quieter parts of the primary network.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,489 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    I really don't see the sense in the guidance they refer to. I can't see them going for 8km of 2+2 here and even if they did, there would be a high likelihood not get built due to environmental or financial implications. SC designed for 80km/h would be dangerous as many would still drive at closer to 100km/h, if not more.

    The most sensible option to me would be a new single carriageway alongside the straight sections of the existing road and completely new route at the curvy sections. You would only need one, possibly two junctions on the new road between the tie-ins at either end. The existing road would retain access to houses and some local journeys (particularly slow moving traffic) would remain on it rather than transferring to the new road. Capacity wouldn't be the same as 2+2 but you'd still have two lanes in each directions and the new SC wouldn't be taking 100% of traffic on the road currently.



Advertisement