Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

24

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭kala85


    What's ws2


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,633 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 667 ✭✭✭BelfastVanMan


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 667 ✭✭✭BelfastVanMan


    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".


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    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
  • Registered Users Posts: 667 ✭✭✭BelfastVanMan


    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.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,811 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 667 ✭✭✭BelfastVanMan


    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
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


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


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭kala85


    Is 2 plus 2 a, dual carriage way


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    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


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Route options to be published in Q4.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21




  • Registered Users Posts: 6,646 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 436 ✭✭searay


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,462 ✭✭✭bennyineire


    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


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,917 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,811 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,462 ✭✭✭bennyineire


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,811 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭steeler j


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,462 ✭✭✭bennyineire


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭steeler j


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,646 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 667 ✭✭✭BelfastVanMan


    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
  • Registered Users Posts: 962 ✭✭✭medoc


    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