New Ross bypass bridge

sondagefaux wrote: »

So you didn't actually cycle on the A65?

Nope. Protected cycle lane behind an armco barrier. I'm sure it cost a relatively small amount compared to the road. Just pointing out how other countries cater for modes other than motorised traffic.

Last Stop wrote: »

Or the purpose built greenway all the way to Dungarvan?

Doesn't suit Tour De France wannabes.

is there much of a difference to new ross traffic with this open?

pummice wrote: »

Anyone know when Google Maps will have the new bridge and roads live on their system?

It may take weeks or months.

In the meantime https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/52.3866/-6.9240

Osamabindipper wrote: »

The enniscorthy bypass was on it within a matter fo days so may not take so long.

It should show at the zoomed-in levels. If it still doesn't show, try [Ctrl][F5] (works on Windows computers, not sure about non-Windows computers).

Zebra3 wrote: »

Not really. Take the road my parents' house is on. Built in the 1960s. The road in front of their house was built for car traffic. There is no shortage of roads like that in the state.

Was cycling big in the 1960s?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Was cycling big in the 1960s?

There was significantly lower car ownership so I would suggest probably yes

Zebra3 wrote: »

No footpath. :rolleyes:

https://twitter.com/misteil/status/1222198219712663558

I think some people just have a problem with the concept of building roads. But even I was surprised by the tone of the shrieking in that tweet. And I'm rarely surprised by the hysterical shrieking of certain kinds of people these days.

There was a very good reason not to have a cycle lane mixed in with the traffic stream - this road was designed to get people and goods from place to place (in this case, avoiding the town of New Ross) as quickly and safely as possible.

Mixing high speed travelers and pedestrians/cyclists is not a recipe for either leisure, speed or safety. This is why roads and streets are of equal importance:

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

No there is a footpath they just stopped it at the bridge, lol

The road is a type 2+2 dual carriageway. It does not have footpaths - your picture is of a lay-by.

Why do you claim that the entire road has footpaths when anyone can see that this is not the case?

Which will bring more cars on to the roads and we'll be back at the same congestion problem further down the line.

So ... your solution is to keep strangling all the towns and villages in Ireland with through traffic? Because if you want towns to be livable, pleasant places to capture value, while keeping people moving safely and quickly, there has to be an appropriate provision of both streets and roads. Ireland tried just ramming more cars and HGVs through town centres from the 1950s through the 1990s, heck some stroads were even built from scratch, it didn't work. That's why we're now building motorways and 2+2s instead.

Even in the Netherlands where almost everyone cycles, they still need Autosnelweg roads (motorways) and lots of them, because people and goods still need to get around and bike doesn't always cut it. The Dutch probably spent as much building the Ridderkerk interchange as Ireland has spent on entire motorway schemes.

Correct. Traffic level did not warrant motorway. Still enough though to warrant a dedicated setup prioritising fast travel.

In France they use this sign for roads that are not motorways but are still restricted to motor traffic (i.e. no cyclists, pedestrian, horses etc). Generally they're dual-carriageways ("Voie Express" or Expressways) but not always: