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

N4 - Mullingar to Rooskey [route options published]

Options
1246789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 805 ✭✭✭DumbBrunette


    Agreed. I made a submission stating that they should include a direct link between the N5 and the new N4, otherwise N5 traffic will just rat run around Longford trying to get to the nearest junction to join the N4.


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    I was thinking before that the N4 should be extended on a route between Newtown Forbes and Termonbarry and then split. The N4 going north to join the Roosky dualer and a short section of SC N5 continuing west to join the decent SC west of Termonbarry which will feed into the Balla to Scramoge project. It would involve crossing the Shannon twice but would also incorporate a bypass of Termonbarry and see N5 traffic continue on a higher quality quality N4 for longer, rather than getting dizzy on all the roundabouts around Longford.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Drove this route yesterday. The arch bridge at the western end of the bypass looks very very tight for a dual carriageway. Will the bridge have to be knocked or will they be able to break away the rock embankment to make room and carry out some works on the bridge to strengthen it and keep it in place?


  • Registered Users Posts: 667 ✭✭✭BelfastVanMan


    roadmaster wrote: »
    Drove this route yesterday. The arch bridge at the western end of the bypass looks very very tight for a dual carriageway. Will the bridge have to be knocked or will they be able to break away the rock embankment to make room and carry out some works on the bridge to strengthen it and keep it in place?

    Looks the right width for 2+2 me.

    Seems there is a couple of feet each side could be taken away to make it wide enough for HQDC/Motorway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Looks the right width for 2+2 me.

    Seems there is a couple of feet each side could be taken away to make it wide enough for HQDC/Motorway.

    Maybe its just the way I was looking but i taught with an outside lane pushed further out the clearance for artics could be tight


  • Registered Users Posts: 667 ✭✭✭BelfastVanMan


    roadmaster wrote: »
    Maybe its just the way I was looking but i taught with an outside lane pushed further out the clearance for artics could be tight

    Yeah, I know what you mean.

    2+2, from memory, is the same overall width as the old WS2 roads.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,863 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    marno21 wrote: »
    Route options published:

    Virtual consultation: https://consultation.n4mullingartolongford.ie/

    Consultation runs until tomorrow for those interested in making a submission.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,569 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Yeah, I know what you mean.

    2+2, from memory, is the same overall width as the old WS2 roads.

    Sort-of. While 2+2 is usually a bit wider than the old WS2, certain sections of WS2 road can actually be wider than a 2+2.

    2+2 = 15.5 metres (3.5+3.5 each way, 1.5 central median), or 16.5 with the hard-strips on each side included.

    WS2 = 15.0 metres (5 metre lane each way, plus a 2.5 m shoulder on each side). But, for sections with large number of junctions, this was allowed to increase to 17.0 metres in order to to allow for right-turning islands.


  • Registered Users Posts: 667 ✭✭✭BelfastVanMan


    KrisW1001 wrote: »
    Sort-of. While 2+2 is usually a bit wider than the old WS2, certain sections of WS2 road can actually be wider than a 2+2.

    2+2 = 15.5 metres (3.5+3.5 each way, 1.5 central median), or 16.5 with the hard-strips on each side included.

    WS2 = 15.0 metres (5 metre lane each way, plus a 2.5 m shoulder on each side). But, for sections with large number of junctions, this was allowed to increase to 17.0 metres in order to to allow for right-turning islands.

    Thanks very much for that info, I never knew the exacts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 805 ✭✭✭DumbBrunette


    Does anyone know when a preferred route corridor might be selected for this, or do the existing options have to be 'refined' first?



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,237 ✭✭✭highdef


    Bump!!!! Also wondering when there will be an update on this now that it's been stated that it's still very much on the roadmap, pun intended.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Not an Eamon Ryan friendly project unfortunately.



  • Registered Users Posts: 35 Spiaire


    That clown would think lorries should be replaced with bicycles...



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,303 ✭✭✭markpb


    It's amazing how personally people take any suggestion that their pet project isn't top priority or that some small changes might be necessary to stave off the negative effects of climate change. It's easier to throw muck at the messenger, especially if that messenger is a politician, a green or both, than to deal with the issues involved.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,863 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    This has nothing to do with Ryan, TII have limited funding for next year and have to prioritise projects. This project is clearly a lower priority as the existing road is generally safe (straight and wide) and the main towns on the route are already bypassed.

    I'd say there is little or no hope of progressing under the PSC anyway. 50km of road at a cost of c.€600m cannot be justified to bypass a few villages (plus providing outter bypasses of the already bypassed Longford and Edgeworthstown). Much of the route barely exceeds the AADT for single carriageway but even that is quite evenly spread across the day so congestion is not a major issue. It certainly isn't a route which justifies spending well in excess of half a billion euro.



  • Registered Users Posts: 574 ✭✭✭Aontachtoir


    I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be disappointed when projects they were promised and which would make their lives a bit easier are cancelled. Nor do I see how a few kilometres of safer road in the midlands (for what will mostly be EVs by the time it's open) is going to make much of an impact on the global climate, to be honest.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,863 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    The project hasn't been cancelled, it just doesn't have any funding for next year. That probably doesn't have much impact on delivery for now anyway as it has a long way to go through the planning process and funding for construction wont be available until the end of the decade at the earliest.



  • Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭steeler j


    I didn't think this scheme would start construction until 2031/32 but I still I think it should have got funding to pick a route this year and then leave it without funding until 2025 . At least with a route picked the people who are not on the preferred route would have there minds put at ease .



  • Registered Users Posts: 35 Spiaire


    I live nowhere near this road. But I do use it from time to time.

    Which is irrelevant.


    People like Ryan might mean well, but they're holding the rest of the country to ransom.


    It's THEIR pet projects that are the real problem; trying to get us all on bicycles, taxing us to breaking point for driving something other than an overpriced, underdeveloped electric car which many of us can't afford, fining us for going slightly too fast, stopping for too long, claiming that it's better for the environment NOT to replaced overloaded, dangerous legacy roads, it simply HAS TO STOP.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    So Dublin can have how many Motorways? 5 or 6 but Rooskey can't even have one? Hardly seems fair.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 35 Spiaire




  • Registered Users Posts: 9,303 ✭✭✭markpb



    There's credible science behind the desire to reduce carbon emissions and global warming. It's long past someone "meaning well". Every road project will undeniably result an increase in road use with a corresponding increase in emissions. Every infrastructure project from now on will be judged on it's environmental impact as well as it's business case. If you want to blame Ryan personally for that and carry on misguided rants about bicycles, you're missing the point.



  • Registered Users Posts: 574 ✭✭✭Aontachtoir


    It's a shame we've chosen to use a benchmark which will only lead to new austerity (does this project in isolation lead to more or less emissions) as opposed to one which is actually meaningful (will this project have a significant effect on global carbon emissions trends). Trying to reduce Irish emissions through new austerity is a bit pointless if it doesn't affect the global climate in any significant way.

    Ireland could revert to Stone Age living tomorrow and the world would continue to warm away merrily without paying a moment of notice. We need to have a more realistic view of how much effect a few more kilometres of road for EV will really have on the planet.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,731 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Straight and wide roads aren't that safe with very high traffic, you get muppet overtaking leading to super high closing speed head-ons; the villages on the way can be significant delay factors (and have lots of sitting polluting traffic); and the two 90 degree bends in Newtownforbes are collision prone (again, drivers fault but a lot of road engineering to improve safety is reducing where drivers can cause the problems)



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,569 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Some people here seriously over-estimate the power that Eamon Ryan has.

    This project has not been cancelled, it’s been pushed out a couple of years. That says to me that the delay is about funding, not some sort of environmental objection. ...and the government has been spending a lot of money in the last 18 months.

    I really don’t think this will be a “motorway” in any case. Traffic counts for north of Mullingar are around 13,500 (pre-Covid), and drop below 10k pretty quickly as you get to Edgeworthstown. A 2+2 can handle up to 22,000 AADT (with headroom for more: it’s actually the junctions that determine the upper limit). There’s no real need to go further than that.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The only section of the N4 that needs to be urgently upgraded along this route is the 3 miles or so east of Longford Town. There's varying to no hard shoulder and it's quite narrow.

    A poster earlier mentioned that Rooskey needs a motorway because Dublin has 5. This is just ridiculous. I know Rooskey well as I live about 30 minutes away. There are a lot of things Rooskey needs: reopening its hotel which is now an eyesore being one, more people moving to the area being another. The people of Rooskey aren't crying out for a motorway because it's already been bypassed.

    A bypass of Carrick, the N55 from Athlone to Ballymahon, realigning the bad bends on the N16/N63/N67 etc would be far more beneficial in the short term for a fraction of the cost of this motorway.



  • Registered Users Posts: 805 ✭✭✭DumbBrunette


    It isn't the most urgent upgrade, but the traffic figures are similar to the quieter stretches of the inter urban motorways. So based on that it isn't unreasonable to push for a motorway as far as Longford anyway. 2+2 is probably all we'll get though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,495 ✭✭✭beggars_bush


    Disagree

    This route from Mullingar to Longford carries two major roads to the West and NW.

    It is de facto the only way to get to Donegal

    Travel the road on a Friday evening or Sunday evening and the level of traffic can be very frustrsting, with tailbacks at Ballinalack and Longford

    During the summer it is a very busy route out of Dublin for tourists off the ferry, with car hire or campervans.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,863 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    A new road from east of Ballinalack to west of Rathowen (possibly incorporating some online upgrade in between) would solve a lot of issues here.

    What is really needed is a scheme to remove lots of the crappy bungalows along this and several other N roads around the country. If Ryan really wanted to do something positive, he would look at some way of dealing with these isolated houses which also create a danger on busy roads. They shouldn't be occupied beyond the current occupier and even they should be encouraged to vacate.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It is de facto not the only road to get to Donegal. In fact, nobody travels to Donegal via the N4. Where are you getting this daft notion from? Coming from Dublin, people travel to Donegal via NI, either via Aughnacloy or Fermanagh, N2 or N3 respectively depending on direction, or via minor and local roads if heading to other areas in Donegal. It is utterly false to suggest otherwise. We don't have border controls and if a hard border was to come in the morning, the fact would remain that nobody would travel to Donegal via the N4.

    Disagree if you wish but deal with facts. Yes, it's a busy road. No, it isn't busy enough to justify a motorway. Even if a motorway was/may be built, it's not a high priority given all the other safety schemes alone that need to be prioritised. It won't be happening within the next 8-10 years minimum so in the meantime, the section east of Longford for circa 3 miles or so should be widened.



Advertisement