Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

N24 - Cahir to Limerick Junction [design and planning underway]

1789101113»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 530 ✭✭✭Limerick74


    That would be Tuesday 27th May and Wednesday 28th May.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 322 ✭✭steeler j




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,811 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Design update up

    https://n24cahirlimerick.ie/news/

    IMO 2+1 from Brookes Bridge to Limerick Junction is short sighted. The section from the N74 to Cahir is quieter and should be ok as 2+1.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,746 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Depressing to see this sort of penny pinching naffness proposed for any national route. It's got the works - the at-grade roundabouts throughout, no hard shoulders, inconsistent design...

    The connection with the M8 is the same as the M9/N25 junction mess instead of a basic free flow you've to go through multiple roundabouts. Very poor quality stuff.

    If it were back in the 1980s you could probably excuse it for lack of money but there is no excuse for low standards now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 170 ✭✭VeryOwl


    What's their rationale for this design profile?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    A good question. My guess is that it's down to these two facts:

    1. This route is not likely to exceed the traffic limits of a single carriageway for a long time, so 2+2 cannot be justified on capacity grounds
    2. Single carriageway profiles are now only permitted on new national roads in rural areas if the speed limit is 80 or less. At higher speeds, a divided road type is now required. This is clearly a safety requirement.

    I suspect the new requirement in point 2 is the result of analysis of accident data. Logically, head-on collisions are most likely where traffic levels are 1. high enough for drivers to get delayed behind other vehicles, 2. low enough for drivers to consider overtaking, but 3. still high enough for there to be a good chance of encountering traffic in the oncoming lane. (At very high levels of traffic, nobody even tries to overtake; at extremely low traffic levels, you don't need to overtake as much.)

    This "dangerous middle", where overtaking becomes more dangerous and more desirable, is common on rural stretches of national roads, and the answer that doesn't require a wider road is to use 2+1 instead of Type 1 Single.

    In doing this, we have finally come around to the reason that Sweden used 2+1 in the first place : safety.

    Our experience of 2+1 in this country is bad because on our first go, we tried to use it as a way of increasing capacity to avoid building a wider road. That's really not what it's for, although it does give a modest capacity improvement over a single carriageway (16,000 vs 13500 AADT if I recall right)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,746 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Aside from small mindedness and the usual failure to think long term it's a mixture of cost pettiness and we are in the legacy phase of the Green's appalling time in government as well so this won't be the only scheme worthy of a poorish second world kind of country. Other schemes have also stumbled along during that period. They delayed and also tried to butcher the M20, for example, for ideological reasons in to similar second rate crap. Didn't succeed there.

    This is not the quality of infrastructure the country needs. Needs to be better.

    This is not even "the least we can get away with". It's below that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,263 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    I'm not too bothered about the roundabouts personally, they are just a bit of a nuisance. But the whole thing from Waterford to Limerick should be 2+2, end of story.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    2+2 really can't be justified on the small volumes of traffic using this part of N24. This is a very quiet road, and there's not even any avoidance at work either (there are no better roads going this way): it's just that not many people live in this part of the country.

    Compare with N25, which is far busier and is still just single carriageway between Waterford and Midleton. That's where the cost of a 2+2 upgrade should be spent, but honestly, N25 is one of the better primary roads (only Castlemartyr remains as a bottleneck).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    I have no problems with a 2+1 profile for most of this road as long as the design is thought through and there are decent blocks of 2+1 on each side. If you look at the traffic volumes it should be more than enough.

    However having driven most of it a number of times in the last few weeks what is confusing me is why it is starting/ending at Limerick Junction rather than Limerick itself. The Limerick to Limerick Junction section is by far the busiest section of this road. The station TMU N24 000.0 W (N24 Between Ballysimon and R513 Jn, Killonan, Co. Limerick) records a traffic count of just over 17,000 for the last three years whereas the station TMU N24 040.0 E (N24 Between Bansha and Tipperary Town, Co. Tipperary) records only counts of around 7,000. This upgrade still leaves Oola and Pallas Green not bypassed and they are significant bottlenecks.

    I've never heard on any plan to complete this section. So while I'd be happy with any sort of upgrade of the N24 I don't understand why this has been left out.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 530 ✭✭✭Limerick74


    The project includes a bypass of Oola. Stops just short of Pallasgreen but bypasses the dangerous brooks bridge rail crossing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    Ah I see - I was confused by the title. Still don't understand why it doesn't go the full to/from Limerick and the M7?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,073 ✭✭✭✭road_high


    that part of the road is the best quality part of the existing road and saw upgrades in the 90s/early 00s. That’s probably why



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 162 ✭✭Entonces


    Road is terrible from Pallasgreen to Boher. No overtaking possibilities, no hard shoulder and cattle crossing road twice daily



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,073 ✭✭✭✭road_high


    It’s decent from that turnoff for is it Doon or Cappamore(?) to Limerick. I’d assumed the planned upgrade would be meeting there but I must be wrong



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 169 ✭✭Tockman


    Looks like the planned upgrade starts after Pallasgreen, unfortunately the awful road from Boher to Pallasgreen stays untouched, bizarrely



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 162 ✭✭Entonces


    Yes from Grange Cross(Cappamore turn off) to Limerick is mostly fine. From Limerick side of Pallasgreen to Grange Cross is not good. Original plan was to bypass Pallasgreen too but never happened. Stopping the far side of the village past Brooks bridge is short sighted I feel.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 820 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    The road may be decent in itself but having driven to Limerick last week myself and another car got stuck behind a car going at 60kph making no effort to move over just after Pallas Green. However the volume of oncoming traffic out from Limerick meant there was absolutely no chance of overtaking safely until we got onto the 2 lane section just before the M7 interchange. It was extremely frustrating. I still don't understand why the N24 upgrade doesn't just go as far as the M7.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,263 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    Ending the bypass a few kilometers short of Pallasgreen is utterly, utterly stupid. Even if you're not going all the way to Limerick, AT LEAST bypass the town under the same project.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 162 ✭✭Entonces


    Agreed. Drove Limerick to Waterford and back this evening. Jeez it really is a shocking road connecting two cities



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,073 ✭✭✭✭road_high


    it’s painful and also dangerous. So bad some posters here would tell you they take the M9 and cross-country to the M7 as an alternative. Can’t say I blame them. Longer distance wise yes, but time and safety wise probably not so much. Another new upgraded section of the N77 also just finished



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,811 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    https://n24cahirlimerick.ie/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/272687-ARUP-ZZ-XX-FN-Z-000029-D2.pdf

    A fairly uneventful August newsletter confirming this is now on the home straight.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭Rulmeq


    Wow, so many roundabouts… That's depressing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    They’re all 80 metre roundabouts on the mainline - for a road with the low traffic that this route has, there’s not going to be issue.

    Looks like a nice project: good gradients, safe design, a proper segregated road with no side entrances. Plus 6+ km of the route, from N74 to Limerick Junction is being built as a 2+2 cross-section, which again makes sense as that’s the only place with any real traffic.

    If needed, this will be easy to upgrade to a 2+2 in future. I don’t think it’ll be needed though.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,263 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    I hate quoting my own post, but for me this is the one reason that I would not call this project "nice". Its just stupid.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,846 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    for a road with the low traffic

    The road currently has low traffic volumes, this is true. But in 10/15/20 years time traffic will likely increase exponentially. Would it not be better to future proof ourselves now and build a motorway between the 2 cities?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Traffic right now on this stretch is 7,000 AADT at Tipperary Town, which is being bypassed using a 2+2 road. That road has a capacity of 22,000 AADT. For perspective, even the M8 only carries 17,000 AADT around here.

    The volumes today are so low that it will be more than 30 years before demand starts to trouble a 2+2 road. The design allows a relatively cheap update of the other, 2+1 sections to 2+2 if capacity becomes an issue… in a few decades. Junctions can be replaced easily if greater throughput is needed… in the late 2060s. A 2+2 with high-capacity junctions is good for about 25~30,000 AADT. If we ever see that traffic between Cahir and Tipp town, then frankly this road would be the least of our worries.

    Talk of a motorway here is completely daft. That road type has a capacity of 40,000 AADT. There’s a small chance that cross-section may be considered on a continuation to Limerick, and a very much smaller chance of it on the road out of Waterford, but here, it would be a colossal waste of money. 2+1 is well above what’s needed everywhere except Tipp town, and the option to extend to 2+2 will keep the road ahead of traffic volumes for another 40 years at least.



Advertisement