N4 - Collooney to Castlebaldwin [open to traffic]

scooby77 wrote: »

Of course it goes back to old chestnut of building a bypass through the town in 1st place (so not really a bypass!)

Every time I go to Donegal, I fly along the fantastic dual carriageway only to come to a dead stop at the first of six sets of traffic lights, and I shake my fist in anger at the (clouds*) morons who didn't put in a proper bypass because the usual transport planning geniuses (local businesses who have no transport planning expertise) demanded that it be this way.

I also fire a curse or two at the gobsh1tes who didn't put in a GSJ at the Collooney junction (the R290 one), and who insisted at putting a roundabout in beside Summerhill college (Junction S4), when it was not necessary.



* Simpsons reference

dakar wrote: »

It should improve the traffic flow when it’s done, it was a fairly tedious junction layout beforehand with the N4, N15, N16 and local Rosses Point traffic converging at a cobbled together mishmash of junctions.

The roadworks are clogging the whole flow of traffic northbound along the mid block route as two lanes merge into one just south of Hughes’ Bridge and do seem to be taking a very long time.

Full description here:
https://www.sligococo.ie/N4-N15/

I don't understand why they didn't do this project back when they working on Hughes bridge a few years ago.

veryangryman wrote: »

The roundabout id imagine is to slow down traffic on approach to the hill and estates nearby


But yes how the fk does Sligo not have an actual bypass. Ots madness that it doesn't even get discussed

Fairly sure there was a study done by the NRA during the Celtic Tiger that resulted in 3 proposed routes being identified for a western bypass.

Think that there's difficulties in that they have to try and avoid impacting on Carrowmore, Gibraltar Point and Carton Marsh due to various protected designations

Is that a bi-directional cycle path immediately east of the eastern parallel link? Is it built as Type 3 SC like recent national secondaries?

KrisW1001 wrote: »

Yes, it most likely is: all new 2+2 roads must now incorporate a segregated pedestrian and cycle-way along the alignment, either beside the one of the main carriageways (separated by a barrier), or on a parallel road nearby.

I wasn't aware that this was a requirement for 2+2s. Is a similar track being provided alongside the new 2+2 road or elsewhere, couldn't see any evidence of it in the video? Are such tracks also being provided as part of the N5 and N22 projects?

KrisW1001 wrote: »

This presentation, Slide 10, says they're mandatory on 2+2 projects.
https://www.tii.ie/tii-library/conferences_and_seminars/nrc/nra-nrc-2019/12-Eoin-Doyle-Arup-Presentation.pdf

As for the other projects, I don't know. It depends on when the cycleways became mandatory - earlier builds may be excluded. Also, it seems to be possible to get away with it if a proper cycle route is created on the bypassed road.

I would have thought that the N4 scheme was earlier (given it started earlier) and therefore would be less likely to have the pedestrian/cyclist requirement than the others mentioned.

Interestingly, that presentation talks about Expressway being introduced as an identity for 2+2 with its own signage, etc. from page 29, as was discussed in another thread.

KrisW1001 wrote: »

https://www.tii.ie/tii-library/conferences_and_seminars/nrc/nra-nrc-2019/12-Eoin-Doyle-Arup-Presentation.pdf

That's a very clear and interesting presentation. Thanks for posting.

Im all for the cycling idea, but won't the increased land grab required slow down potential projects which were previously near shovel ready

KrisW1001 wrote: »

If a project is shovel-ready, it gets built to the design standard that was in place when it got planning. This is for new projects going to planning.

The land-take for a 2+2 on its own is only slightly larger than a wide ("Type 1") single carriageway. The pedestrian/cycle provision wouldn't add much to this: a 3 m strip added to the verge, but it is also allowed to be provided by upgrading a suitable route close to the corridor, which means no extra land is needed.

The higher pedestrian safety for the local people who would occasionally walk/cycle on the route makes this type a net benefit to people who live near the mainline (unlike a motorway, which is a pretty bad deal if you live near the mainline, far from any junction), and should actually help with getting it through planning.

I would hope the 'backup' strategy of adjacent roads would be used only somewhere they have to make a major cutting or something where cycling in the cutting would be quite unpleasant anyway.

serfboard wrote: »

Has anyone ever seen people cycling in these cycle lanes though?

On the only ones of these (2+2 with pedestrian/cycle lanes) that I'm familiar with - the Castleisland and Tralee bypasses - I've never seen anyone cycle on them.

I've seen cyclists on the road though. :mad:

Perfectly legally entitled to be on any road that isn't a motorway AFAIK.

I am unsure how heavily used the current routes are, many of the 'safe' cycling routes either are not safely linked together (for long distance routes) or don't take anyone where they want to go, is there a good cycleway from the Castleisland bypass to the town centre along all the radials? Or the same in Tralee?

The people who will cycle on the road and those who will use protected cycleways are two entirely different demographics, I can guarantee that those using the bypass cycleway will be those intimidated by no/poor cycling provision along the radial routes.

Orbital traffic is always going to be less than radial traffic anyway (This applies across all/most modes?) and the Bicycle/Pedestrian is more suited for shorter journeys, so a cycling bypass of a town is going to be less used than a public transport/car bypass. As far as I know neither of those bypasses are connected well to a safe national cycle network so you won't get those longer distance cyclists either, this new section is on an interurban so it would be part of such a network.

To put it another way, the Galway ring road is incredibly busy, end to end traffic (M6 to N59) on it though is fairly low? The number of cars on it would therefore be very low if you closed all the junctions between both points (essentially what is happening to a non road confident cyclist with the Tralee and Castleisland cycleways)

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I would hope the 'backup' strategy of adjacent roads would be used only somewhere they have to make a major cutting or something where cycling in the cutting would be quite unpleasant anyway.

If what you mean by 'backup' strategy is a ped/cycle route not alongside the 2+2 being built but instead along another road or canal/disused rail line, then I think that should be the primary strategy with alongside the 2+2 being the fallback position. Walking/cycling alongside four lanes of high speed traffic is not very attractive. If the ped/cycle route can be provided elsewhere, it would in most cases make for a better route. Alongside the now bypassed road would certainly be preferable as that road will see less and slower moving traffic and likely better link the local population.

Quackster wrote: »

most cyclists are better off on the mainline where they can be

killed or seriously injured.

This road be8ng built is a radial route though.

So you may get a few commuters if colloney to sligo got sorted too.

Trailer bypass and R136 Dublin outer road are all circular ones that have feck all uptake for same reason.