nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

N4 - Dromod/Roosky Bypass

JupiterKid

The N4 Roosky-Dromod bypass was opened a few days ago. It was originally supposed to be a 2+1 road, but it was decided during constructiuon to make it a 2+2 - effectively a dual carriageway.

But surely if it was only planned to be a 2+1, the bypass must have no hard shoulders? I've heard that the divider between the carriageways is only a wire rope fence. This seems very substandard for a road that claims to function as a dualler.

Find more posts tagged with

bypass

m4 motorway

Quick Links

Comments

Duzzie

JupiterKid wrote: »

The N4 Roosky-Dromod bypass was opened a few days ago. It was originally supposed to be a 2+1 road, but it was decided during constructiuon to make it a 2+2 - effectively a dual carriageway.

But surely if it was only planned to be a 2+1, the bypass must have no hard shoulders? I've heard that the divider between the carriageways is only a wire rope fence. This seems very substandard for a road that claims to function as a dualler.

Just to point out the Dromod -Roosky Bypass was originally intendened to be a Wide Single. The traffic flows on this section would never justify a Standard Dual.

Duzzie

Irish and Proud

JupiterKid wrote: »

And here's a photo of the Roosky-Dromod bypass.
Seems the NRA have really dropped the spec for DCs lately.:D

But what more do you want? The median is super wide, the carriageways would easily take 2 lanes each way, and it seems to go for quite some distance...

...well, if it's for miniture cars maybe!!!

BTW, they'd want to do something with that surface or it might be miniture moon buggies instead!!!

:D:D

L1011

I've driven this now, the 2+2 is more than sufficient for the needs of the road. Seems to be somewhat similar to the road to Coleraine (the path of the cancelled M2) up North, which would have similar traffic I'd say and has been safe and used for 20+ years.

murphaph

New pics uploaded to SABRE of this scheme (not by me)...

Fine looking road to me for 6,000 vehicles per day. The M50 isn't much better and carries 100k+!!

Victor

1. One would be tempted to put a jersey barrier in the middle. It would fit, but it would be awfully tight. Are cyclists expected to use the "hard shoulder"?

2. It is interesting that the signs merit Armco barriers, when there are collapsible signs on the market. It is very interesting that the Armco barriers continue afer the sign.
3. Sightline doesn't look great. Is there an underpass here?
4. Armco barrier fitted in the wrong place - if vehicles go up the embankment, they can still hit the underside of the bridge. Barriers are much more important before a bridge than after.
5. Again, sightline doesn't look great.

loyatemu

Victor wrote: »

1. One would be tempted to put a jersey barrier in the middle. It would fit, but it would be awfully tight. Are cyclists expected to use the "hard shoulder"?

cyclists should really go through Rooskey and Dromod - this may not be a motorway but there should be some mechanism for barring cyclists and pedestrians from new-build interurban roads. Can anyone really argue that its safe to have cyclists mixing with 100 km/h traffic on the likes of the Arklow bypass.

Chris_533976

Any level of camera zoom will distort the distance (distant object look closer), hell I've used that to make roads worse than they are

So the line of site probably isnt quite so bad

murphaph

I believe they will switch to Jersey barriers on this road type sooner rather than later as they see the ongoing maintenance costs will more than justify it. A jersey barrier would also make this road "feel" more like a dual carriageway.

Totally agree that this road should have motorway restrictions. I don't see why it shouldn't be classified as motorway tbh. Just keep the 100 limit. They have obviously designed the road with the intention of keeping local traffic off it as there is only 1 intermediate junction and all the minor roads are bridged over the bypass.

On the whole though it's light years ahead of what we used to build in such circumstances. Imagine the entire N24 completed like that? Or the N17 north of Tuam to Sligo? They'd be fine roads, as would a southerly extension to the dualled N11.

Chris_533976

What I'd do is reclassify the HQDCs to motorway, and have these labelled N with similar status as the DC bits of British A1 or something like that, with 100kmh limits.

They cant be motorway restricted, as they have roundabouts for junctions. Thats the thing.

L1011

The DC bits of the A1 are in fact 70mph though aren't they?

loyatemu

Chris_533976 wrote: »

What I'd do is reclassify the HQDCs to motorway, and have these labelled N with similar status as the DC bits of British A1 or something like that, with 100kmh limits.

They cant be motorway restricted, as they have roundabouts for junctions. Thats the thing.

you could have something similar to the French "motor vehicles only" restriction that applies on many of their dual-carriageways (and some single-carriageways)

murphaph

Chris_533976 wrote: »

They cant be motorway restricted, as they have roundabouts for junctions. Thats the thing.

I don't see why the two stretches either side of the roundabout in the middle can't be classified as motorway tbh. We already have roundabouts on motorways here. The roundabout itself would not be under restrictions however.

The continental "happy car" sign would be completely ignored here I fear. It's hard enough keeping prohibited traffic off the motorways!

MYOB wrote:

The DC bits of the A1 are in fact 70mph though aren't they?

Only if they are signed with a

otherwise they are signed as 60. Much of the A1 in NI is indeed 60, even the DC bits as it's quite twisty.

mackerski

murphaph wrote: »

Only if they are signed with a otherwise they are signed as 60. Much of the A1 in NI is indeed 60, even the DC bits as it's quite twisty.

Well, in fact it's more the other way around. A Dual Carriageway in the UK has a 70mph limit unless a lower limit is posted. And yes, the sections of A1 around Banbridge and Dromore have 60 limits. These have more to do with median crossings than curves. The Newry-Beech Hill section is curvy, though, and has a 60 limit because of this.

marno21

"Unanimous calls" by Leitrim County Council to retrofit hard shoulders onto the N4 Dromod-Roosky bypass.

http://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/home/211038/call-to-retrofit-bypass-with-hard-shoulders.html

L1011

marno21 wrote: »

"Unanimous calls" by Leitrim County Council to retrofit hard shoulders onto the N4 Dromod-Roosky bypass.

http://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/home/211038/call-to-retrofit-bypass-with-hard-shoulders.html

Like the "calls" from SDCC to reopen exits on the N4 at Lucan - ain't going to happen.

Implausibly expensive due to land take and structure widths.

All gombeen nonsense - "He also sought assurances that any extension of the bypass would also include this along with “numerous crossing points to accommodate local residents with property on either side and to prevent the community on one side being cut off from the other." - so they want to massively reduce safety to garner a few votes while making safety claims!

Spanish Eyes

Who pays for this? Just a question.

NRA or LPT.

The worst road I ever drove on was the N4 into Sligo. So many white crosses, and no hard shoulder for most of the way.

Surely that would have more traffic than the above.

Anyway. Who am I ?

marno21

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Who pays for this? Just a question.

NRA or LPT.

The worst road I ever drove on was the N4 into Sligo. So many white crosses, and no hard shoulder for most of the way.

Surely that would have more traffic than the above.

Anyway. Who am I ?

This section of the N4 (Collooney to Castlebaldwin) is being upgraded to the same standard as Dromod-Roosky with construction starting likely in the next 2 years.

monument

L1011 wrote: »

All gombeen nonsense - "He also sought assurances that any extension of the bypass would also include this along with “numerous crossing points to accommodate local residents with property on either side and to prevent the community on one side being cut off from the other." - so they want to massively reduce safety to garner a few votes while making safety claims!

I read crossings as bridges / underpasses.

monument

Moved from Commuting and Transport to Roads.

marno21

Leitrim CoCo haven't given up - renewed calls for hard shoulder on N4 Dromod/Roosky bypass. "Dangerous"

http://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/on-the-road/252403/leitrim-county-councillors-back-call-for-hard-shoulder-provision-on-future-road-projects.html

SeanW

I see the problem in part - if you are driving and you have for example a flat/blowout tyre or your engine overheats things like these do happen albeit rarely) you have to stop. Full stop. And stopping in the driving carriageway is rarely a good idea.

My question is this: would it feasible to add segments of hard shoulder to 2+2 dual carriageways? By that I mean on flat or near flat ground sections, excluding bridges and other areas where the cost would be much higher.

veryangryman

To be frank...theyre being Muppets.

The n4 has some truly brutal sections and most are delighted to see the dromod roosky bypass when they finally reach it on a long trip.

Im sure those in collooney castlebaldwin or anywhere in longford would love a road to that standard. In an era where the n20 goat track exists, those in leitrim should be happy with what their smaller population gets in terms of pieces if the pie

marno21

If you have a breakdown on the 98% of Irish roads without a shoulder you have the same issue.

2+2 functions well for a variety of reasons.

1. Breakdowns these days are rare. People should also maintain and check their tyres and cars to make breakdowns less common. Hard shoulders were an idea from an era of very unreliable cars.
2. The hard shoulder on a WS2 road is 5-6m of fully paved road that is rarely used except for people pulling in to overtake. The 2+2 design is more efficient with use of available tarmacadam.
3. There is a roundabout in the middle of the Dromod/Roosky bypass, and you can't travel far before being able to get off it.
4. Future 2+2 schemes with long distances between exits such as the N4 in Sligo will have emergency laybys every 2.5km or so. You'll never be more than 90 seconds from a layby at the speed limit.

munchkin_utd

marno21 wrote: »

Leitrim CoCo haven't given up - renewed calls for hard shoulder on N4 Dromod/Roosky bypass. "Dangerous"

http://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/on-the-road/252403/leitrim-county-councillors-back-call-for-hard-shoulder-provision-on-future-road-projects.html

they also seem to be focusing on the N16, probably the least trafficed national primary route, and that it doesn't have a hard shoulder for planned upgraded sections , even though the traffic doesnt justify it.

with the logic that you build way beyond whats needed especially when you're not paying for it, sure why not push to build a full motorway to Enniskillen. Sure they are the safest roads arent they?

veryangryman

munchkin_utd wrote: »

they also seem to be focusing on the N16, probably the least trafficed national primary route, and that it doesn't have a hard shoulder for planned upgraded sections , even though the traffic doesnt justify it.

with the logic that you build way beyond whats needed especially when you're not paying for it, sure why not push to build a full motorway to Enniskillen. Sure they are the safest roads arent they?

O.T but... That road is under utilised because of its crappiness in my opinion. Road to the second biggest city should definitely get an upgrade. I think it would increase usage a huge amount, not to mention increase Sligos attractiveness for investment,

marno21

veryangryman wrote: »

O.T but... That road is under utilised because of its crappiness in my opinion. Road to the second biggest city should definitely get an upgrade. I think it would increase usage a huge amount, not to mention increase Sligos attractiveness for investment,

If the Sterling is weak it may encourage Sligo shoppers to cross over the border. Might not be welcomed for that reason

lucernarian

marno21 wrote: »

If you have a breakdown on the 98% of Irish roads without a shoulder you have the same issue.

2+2 functions well for a variety of reasons.

1. Breakdowns these days are rare. People should also maintain and check their tyres and cars to make breakdowns less common. Hard shoulders were an idea from an era of very unreliable cars.
2. The hard shoulder on a WS2 road is 5-6m of fully paved road that is rarely used except for people pulling in to overtake. The 2+2 design is more efficient with use of available tarmacadam.
3. There is a roundabout in the middle of the Dromod/Roosky bypass, and you can't travel far before being able to get off it.
4. Future 2+2 schemes with long distances between exits such as the N4 in Sligo will have emergency laybys every 2.5km or so. You'll never be more than 90 seconds from a layby at the speed limit.

If there's no nearby alternative routes between the towns and villages, and residential access is still provided for, then the 2+2 doesn't allow for any kind of sane pedestrian or cycling use. It would be reckless to even walk to the neighbour's house.

The contrast with a typical Irish road is that bends and limited visibility and indeed congestion and established driver behaviour when driving alongside a ditch, all these things make a single pedestrian or cyclist less of a sudden and nasty surprise.

The presence of a second lane completely changes driver attitude into one where overtaking, and therefore max (hopefully at the limit) speed, is effortless.

Road designs like that need to have space for those going at far lower speeds. For instance, the NRA were forced to close most of the climbing lane on the now R132 in Louth precisely because a stationary car was rear-ended in the non-climbing lane, while waiting to make a right turn. It resulted in the deaths of the occupants of the car.

marno21

lucernarian wrote: »

If there's no nearby alternative routes between the towns and villages, and residential access is still provided for, then the 2+2 doesn't allow for any kind of sane pedestrian or cycling use. It would be reckless to even walk to the neighbour's house.

The contrast with a typical Irish road is that bends and limited visibility and indeed congestion and established driver behaviour when driving alongside a ditch, all these things make a single pedestrian or cyclist less of a sudden and nasty surprise.

The presence of a second lane completely changes driver attitude into one where overtaking, and therefore max (hopefully at the limit) speed, is effortless.

Road designs like that need to have space for those going at far lower speeds. For instance, the NRA were forced to close most of the climbing lane on the now R132 in Louth precisely because a stationary car was rear-ended in the non-climbing lane, while waiting to make a right turn. It resulted in the deaths of the occupants of the car.

There is no 2+2 in Ireland without a viable alternative route at present, or in the future. The 2+2 online upgrade near Collooney will include the construction of a parallel road for pedestrians and cyclists. These days cyclists and pedestrians are taken into account with roads are dualled.