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

M8 - Cashel to Cullahill

Options
1…34689…17

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    AugustusMaximus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,044 ✭✭✭AugustusMaximus


    Cork to Dublin is almost going to become a pleasure once this bit is done. I dunno what it is about this bit of road but I hate it.

    How long does Culahill to Portlaoise usually take on the old stretch of road ? Excluding Fermoy - Mitchelstown (which I don't actually mind as there's loads of climbing lanes) it will be the only section left unbuilt.


  • Options
    #153
    Steviemak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 430 ✭✭Steviemak


    AugustusMaximus wrote: »
    How long does Culahill to Portlaoise usually take on the old stretch of road ?

    Its about 28km so taking in slowing down in Cullahill, Durrow and Abbeyleix i would say 30 mins at most.

    But at peaktimes through Abbeyleix can take 30mins + on its own. Its not going to be pretty travelling through there for the next year and a half!!


  • Options
    #154
    G_R
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,024 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    FIRE wrote: »
    Ive been travelling every weekend to cork, and have been waiting for this stretch to open, as It's the 1 bit of road I hate. I can see where the urlingford roundabout, but cant make out where the roundabout at cullahill wil be, whereabouts is this going to be?


    its just outside cullahill on the cork side.......its off the side of the road...not actually on it...there is a couple of signs there saying M8 project..sisks....yada yada yada


  • Options
    #155
    larryone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭larryone


    It's visible from the road. Last time I drove by they were removing the earth between the existing road and the roundabout. The roundabout itself has been there for a while.
    I'm driving past it this evening again. Wont have time to stop and take photos, but if I notice anything significant I'll post again tonight.


  • Options
    #156
    FIRE
    Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭FIRE


    I hadnt noticed the work or roundabout because all my travelling up and down is done at night.

    I'll be travelling down tonight and will try do my best to pick it out.

    :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    larryone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭larryone


    I was too late, it was too dark. I'm driving down again Sunday afternoon in daylight...


  • Options
    #158
    Danno
    Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭Danno


    The new roundabout is right on the border. Streetlights have been erected. It will be interesting to see how they tie in the existing N8 into the new junction.

    Heading southbound I notice fencing in a semi-circle on the left hand side of the N8 at the border (opposite side to the M8)

    It looks like there will be two roundabouts to go through on the LS/KK border to get on to the new M8.


  • Options
    #159
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Danno wrote: »
    The new roundabout is right on the border. Streetlights have been erected. It will be interesting to see how they tie in the existing N8 into the new junction.

    Heading southbound I notice fencing in a semi-circle on the left hand side of the N8 at the border (opposite side to the M8)

    It looks like there will be two roundabouts to go through on the LS/KK border to get on to the new M8.

    Has it been lined and signed yet?


  • Options
    #160
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    larryone wrote: »
    I was too late, it was too dark. I'm driving down again Sunday afternoon in daylight...

    Any chance you could pull in and snap a photo or two on your mobile phone?


  • Options
    #161
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    I had to go to Durrow unexpectedly today, so I took the opportunity to do a final reconaissance of the scheme.

    The lining and signing is complete at Junction 7 (Cashel North).

    The scheme is done the entire way up to Horse and Jockey (Junction 6), with one tiny exception: the median is not in place for about 5 meters at one point. Junction 6 itself is now also lined and 90% signed. Additionally, today, a team was applying that yellow gritty sand to some of the ramps. Much landscaping works remains to be done here: there's a huge mountain of topsoil there, and much damaged land. This won't take long to do.

    Junction 5 is similarly done. But this is a weird one. It doesn't link to the old N8 at all!

    Junction 4, Urlingford, is completely lined and almost signed. The only bit that needs to be lined now is the access point to the new roundabout on the old N8 that links with the new 1km link to the Kilkenny road. (Incidentally, Urlingford must be a candidate for Ireland's ugliest town, along with Hackettstown in Co Carlow.)

    I actually have photos of the terminus of the scheme. For technological reasons, I won't be able to upload them until tomorrow.

    The contractors have mowed virtually all the grass along the verges, making it look nice and tidy. While parts of the embankments are well planted with birch and other plants, it remains underplanted in my opinion. Personally I think this is a great shame, but at least it can be rectified.

    Of course up at Cullahill I got to see the tail end of the other scheme, the M8/M7 PPP. Practically nothing seems to have been done since JUNE (!!), bar some work on an overbridge, which is still, by the way, largely skeletal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Thanks for the update Furet!

    It's a massive shame that the Cullahill-Portlaoise scheme is going so slowly, considering it started BEFORE the Mitchelstown-Fermoy scheme, it's astonishing to see it so far behind (and yes, I am taking into account that the Cullahill-Portlaoise is around 2.5 times longer before anybody says that :cool:)...

    Anyway, great news about the Cullahill section, I may actually be driving up to Dublin on December 8th, but it'll be very early in the morning.

    Incidentally, just two questions, is the lighting better than the Cashel-Mitchelstown stretch and are there any emergency phones in place - like I've said countless times before, regardless of mobile penetration, the SOS phones are a necessity. It'll be dissappointing to see them neglected on yet another scheme.


  • Options
    #163
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Incidentally, just two questions, is the lighting better than the Cashel-Mitchelstown stretch and are there any emergency phones in place - like I've said countless times before, regardless of mobile penetration, the SOS phones are a necessity. It'll be dissappointing to see them neglected on yet another scheme.

    Lighting: as with the Cashel to Mitchelstown scheme, all the junctions have lighting, but not moreso than Cashel to Mitchelstown.

    Phones: there are no phones up as far as Urlingford, which was originally HQDC. After Urlingford, there might be phones (I did see a funny looking pole with a cable on it close to the terminus of the scheme; this might have been a phone pole, but the phones aren't installed yet. I wouldn't hold my breath.)

    Incidentally, they're not sparing the trimmings with the new roundabout south of Cullahill. It has to be temporary, but it's well lit, and there will be quite a lot of big signs up there. If it is permanent (and I don't think it will be), then only southbound traffic will ultimately be able to use it.


  • Options
    #164
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Furet wrote: »
    Lighting: as with the Cashel to Mitchelstown scheme, all the junctions have lighting, but not moreso than Cashel to Mitchelstown.

    Phones: there are no phones up as far as Urlingford, which was originally HQDC. After Urlingford, there might be phones (I did see a funny looking pole with a cable on it close to the terminus of the scheme; this might have been a phone pole, but the phones aren't installed yet. I wouldn't hold my breath.)

    Incidentally, they're not sparing the trimmings with the new roundabout south of Cullahill. It has to be temporary, but it's well lit, and there will be quite a lot of big signs up there. If it is permanent (and I don't think it will be), then only southbound traffic will ultimately be able to use it.

    Funny to see them putting so much effort into a temporary roundabout. But considering the pace that the Cullahill-Portlaoise scheme is going at, I'd say it'll be there for quite a while.

    It's quite interesting, the roundabout was actually supposed to be the terminus of the Cullahill-Portlaoise scheme (as it was originally intended to be built first), but it seems it's now happened the other way around.

    As for lighting, I don't think junctions 11 and 12 are lit to motorway standards tbh, however I can excuse that because they were constructed at a time when it was HQDC. The C-C scheme, on-the-other-hand, really has no excuse as it's been motorway for the last few months now.

    The phones, well, if they do get used from Urlingford-Cullahill (which I am doubting based on recent schemes, but you never know), then really, there isn't any real barrior stopping them from installing them on the Cullahill-Cashel stretch.

    However something tells me that the Urlingford-Cullahill stretch will be slightly higher in quality than the Cashel-Cullahill stretch.


  • Options
    #165
    G_R
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,024 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Mitchelstown stretch and are there any emergency phones in place - like I've said countless times before, regardless of mobile penetration, the SOS phones are a necessity. It'll be dissappointing to see them neglected on yet another scheme.

    i was going past on a bus the other day (higher than a car...betterv view) and i think i saw a box with a pole with a solar panel on the side of it somewhere between johnstown and the terminus.....that is prob an SOS phone box.....

    however i think these are a waste of money...everyone has a mobile now a days and these things are never used...


  • Options
    #166
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    dannym08 wrote: »
    i was going past on a bus the other day (higher than a car...betterv view) and i think i saw a box with a pole with a solar panel on the side of it somewhere between johnstown and the terminus.....that is prob an SOS phone box.....

    however i think these are a waste of money...everyone has a mobile now a days and these things are never used...

    Well that's encouraging to see...

    However, I strongly disagree that they're a waste of money. There may be a day when you have to stop on the motorway, and you might not have your phone, or it might not be charged, or you won't have any credit, and then you'll be stuck...

    They are one of the features that make motorways the safest roads in Ireland, and in the context of the overall cost of the scheme, they aren't that expensive...


  • Options
    #167
    G_R
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,024 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Well that's encouraging to see...

    However, I strongly disagree that they're a waste of money. There may be a day when you have to stop on the motorway, and you might not have your phone, or it might not be charged, or you won't have any credit, and then you'll be stuck...

    They are one of the features that make motorways the safest roads in Ireland, and in the context of the overall cost of the scheme, they aren't that expensive...

    valid points i supose... i still think they are unnesescary tho....if you are going on a motorway, have your phone and make sure there is credit in it its charged, not very difficult

    and if you are unlucky enough to break down on a motorway with no phone or with a phone that is either not charged or has no credit well then u are going to have to walk a fair distance to the nearest phone, you may as well walk to an exit.

    plus i think solar panels on these is a complete waste of money...they are used about once a year if even that so it doesnt warrent the expense...they should jus be hooked up to the mains if they have to be there

    also they might be small savings but loads if small savings equals big savings


  • Options
    #168
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    I just found the latest Newsletter for this scheme on Kilkenny Co Co's website. It's dated October 2008: http://www.kilkennycoco.ie/resources/eng/Services/Roads/Roads%20Projects/Newsletter03%20Cullahill%20Cashel%20Oct%202008-2.pdf

    It doesn't admit that it'll open in December, but as far as newsletters go, it's not bad at all. Certainly better than anything that other shower north of them have produced.


  • Options
    #169
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    dannym08 wrote: »
    valid points i supose... i still think they are unnesescary tho....if you are going on a motorway, have your phone and make sure there is credit in it its charged, not very difficult

    and if you are unlucky enough to break down on a motorway with no phone or with a phone that is either not charged or has no credit well then u are going to have to walk a fair distance to the nearest phone, you may as well walk to an exit.

    plus i think solar panels on these is a complete waste of money...they are used about once a year if even that so it doesnt warrent the expense...they should jus be hooked up to the mains if they have to be there

    also they might be small savings but loads if small savings equals big savings

    Don't get me wrong, I would have all the emergency phones in Ireland removed if it would generate the 10 million euro needed to resolve the much more important Cervical cancer situation (even though there are many other areas, however, we don't have enough phones (and probably won't for another 10 years) to generate that kind of money.

    Each phone costs (I think) between 5000 and 6000 euro.

    If there is a phone every kiliometre on each stretch of motorway (on both carriageways btw) in Ireland planned or in construction at the moment, then by 2015 we will have spent just over 6 million euro on emergency phones. In the context of the 20 billion euro we'll have spent on roads, that is an incredibly small amount.

    6 million is a significant saving, but not really significant enough to make much of a difference to public finances really. There are many areas in need of cutbacks, but compromising road safety isn't one of them...

    As for the solar panels, I think they are more effective than having the phone plugged into the mains all the time as it requires a constant trickle of power. Solar cells are independent power sources and reduce the need for cabling and connection to the grid. Of course, they are not as reliable as a mains connection, but like you said, the phones are rarely used so I doubt they would need too much electricity.

    Also, another advantage of phones is they often link you directly to the road operator, making it easier to get help and services. And in response to your point about walking to the nearest exit, well, there's a fair difference between 1km to the nearest phone and a few kilometres to the next exit.

    Of course, even more important than the phones, is the SERVICE STATIONS... they are needed very soon... If Dublin-Cork route is finished before the first service station opens, then that'll be 257 km (160 mi) of high quality road without a single place to legally take a rest or get petrol without exiting, which is a disgrace by anyone's standards.


  • Options
    #170
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Furet wrote: »
    I just found the latest Newsletter for this scheme on Kilkenny Co Co's website. It's dated October 2008: http://www.kilkennycoco.ie/resources/eng/Services/Roads/Roads%20Projects/Newsletter03%20Cullahill%20Cashel%20Oct%202008-2.pdf

    It doesn't admit that it'll open in December, but as far as newsletters go, it's not bad at all. Certainly better than anything that other shower north of them have produced.

    It also nice to see that's it's acknowledged the recent redesignation...

    I've seen many newsletters and updates that have failed to do that.

    The newsletter was quite clunky in its presentation compared to the sleek Cashel-Mitchelstown ones, but at least it gave some real information (albeit not an amazing amount).


  • Options
    #171
    G_R
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,024 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong, I would have all the emergency phones in Ireland removed if it would generate the 10 million euro needed to resolve the much more important Cervical cancer situation (even though there are many other areas, however, we don't have enough phones (and probably won't for another 10 years) to generate that kind of money.

    Each phone costs (I think) between 5000 and 6000 euro.

    If there is a phone every kiliometre on each stretch of motorway (on both carriageways btw) in Ireland planned or in construction at the moment, then by 2015 we will have spent just over 6 million euro on emergency phones. In the context of the 20 billion euro we'll have spent on roads, that is an incredibly small amount.

    6 million is a significant saving, but not really significant enough to make much of a difference to public finances really. There are many areas in need of cutbacks, but compromising road safety isn't one of them...

    As for the solar panels, I think they are more effective than having the phone plugged into the mains all the time as it requires a constant trickle of power. Solar cells are independent power sources and reduce the need for cabling and connection to the grid. Of course, they are not as reliable as a mains connection, but like you said, the phones are rarely used so I doubt they would need too much electricity.

    Also, another advantage of phones is they often link you directly to the road operator, making it easier to get help and services. And in response to your point about walking to the nearest exit, well, there's a fair difference between 1km to the nearest phone and a few kilometres to the next exit.

    ok i admit defeat...there is more pro's than cons's when it comes to SOS phones. but if ur maths are correct then we have 60% of the vaccine money....surely it cant be that hard to find another 4 mill (not nessescarily from roads) but thats a completely different issue for another thread another time
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Of course, even more important than the phones, is the SERVICE STATIONS... they are needed very soon... If Dublin-Cork route is finished before the first service station opens, then that'll be 257 km (160 mi) of high quality road without a single place to legally take a rest or get petrol without exiting, which is a disgrace by anyone's standards.

    on this issue i do agree with you... i think its a complete disgrace that there arent more of these. and i dont see what all the fuss is about tbh...i would imagine that (and please correct me if im wrong) all the NRA would have to do is make two breaks in the crash barrier for vehicles to access/leave the station and a service road behind for staff. If they used some common sense and chose locations that were close to existing N/R/L roads that run close to the motorway then service roads wouldn't be much of an expense.

    Once they did this, they would have no more costs (again correct me if im wrong) because companies like applegreen or shell would be more than happy to take it over and run it


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    FIRE
    Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭FIRE


    dannym08 wrote: »
    i was going past on a bus the other day (higher than a car...betterv view) and i think i saw a box with a pole with a solar panel on the side of it somewhere between johnstown and the terminus.....that is prob an SOS phone box.....

    however i think these are a waste of money...everyone has a mobile now a days and these things are never used...

    Dont wanna add too much to this, but I have been in a situation where I hadnt had a signal on Meteor a few years back, and needed to bring a spare 02 sim with me.

    Also for an older person or a person with a disability, a mobile might not be the norm for them and also a long walk might also be too much for them to tackle. I find it reassuring to see a phone, even though I have a mobile, a charger and always have credit.

    Just a little thought.

    :)


  • Options
    #173
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,819 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    dannym08 wrote: »
    on this issue i do agree with you... i think its a complete disgrace that there arent more of these. and i dont see what all the fuss is about tbh...i would imagine that (and please correct me if im wrong) all the NRA would have to do is make two breaks in the crash barrier for vehicles to access/leave the station and a service road behind for staff. If they used some common sense and chose locations that were close to existing N/R/L roads that run close to the motorway then service roads wouldn't be much of an expense.

    Once they did this, they would have no more costs (again correct me if im wrong) because companies like applegreen or shell would be more than happy to take it over and run it

    MSA's require a hell of a lot more than two breaks in the crash barrier.

    Depending on whether you go for single side or dual side services, it varies. Single side needs a bridge, dual side doesn't but needs 2x the facilities. You need full length on and off ramps. Theres quite a lot of land take.

    http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=LA2+9DU&sll=54.115924,-2.757676&sspn=0.006062,0.019312&ie=UTF8&ll=53.961615,-2.757955&spn=0.006085,0.019312&t=h&z=16 is a relatively small (from memory) dual-side MSA in the UK - the bridge is a footbridge as theres different brand cafes and shops each side.

    Also, Shell no longer exist in Ireland...
    FIRE wrote: »
    Dont wanna add too much to this, but I have been in a situation where I hadnt had a signal on Meteor a few years back, and needed to bring a spare 02 sim with me.

    If you can get signal on any network at all, 112 will dial.


  • Options
    #174
    FIRE
    Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭FIRE


    MYOB wrote: »



    If you can get signal on any network at all, 112 will dial.


    It was to ring my brother ;)


  • Options
    #175
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,819 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Thats generally not what emergency telephones let you do, though...


  • Options
    #176
    G_R
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,024 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    MYOB wrote: »
    MSA's require a hell of a lot more than two breaks in the crash barrier.

    Depending on whether you go for single side or dual side services, it varies. Single side needs a bridge, dual side doesn't but needs 2x the facilities. You need full length on and off ramps. Theres quite a lot of land take.

    http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=LA2+9DU&sll=54.115924,-2.757676&sspn=0.006062,0.019312&ie=UTF8&ll=53.961615,-2.757955&spn=0.006085,0.019312&t=h&z=16 is a relatively small (from memory) dual-side MSA in the UK - the bridge is a footbridge as theres different brand cafes and shops each side.

    when i said two breaks in the barrier i didnt literly mean 2 breaks in the barrier. i meant two auxilliary lanes going in and out of the station (still not a massive expense i would immagine).

    I dont kno why you wud hav to put in a bride. both carriageways dont nessescarily (forgive spelling) hav to access the same station. There can be seperate ones on both sides.

    Surely something like what is on the N7 around Rathcoole wouldn't be all that expensive or hard to do. The only extra thing you would need is a service road for staff. I know its not a motorway and it doesnt have the same restrictions but at that point it is really as good as a motorway with regard to the speed cars are travelling and no one has died there
    MYOB wrote: »
    Also, Shell no longer exist in Ireland...

    u get what iu meant, topaz then


  • Options
    #177
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Well the M4 service area will have two seperate facilities on each site, where as the N11 Gorey service area will have one facility accessed via a trumpet style interchange, so it varies... but I don't want to drag this off-topic anymore.

    Btw, the highway agency in the UK actually recommends you use the motorway SOS phone rather than your mobile, because it's easier to track you down to a precise location. I am sure the situation is similar here...

    As for the M8 service stations, I haven't heard anything on them. I just hope they move the proposed Cashel one nearer to Urlingford, it's way too close to the one between Mitchelstown and Fermoy.

    Something tells me however that they won't as the EIS designs are being drawn up at the moment I think.

    Also, Shell have been bought by Topaz, so perhaps they'd consider running an MSA as part of a consortium...


  • Options
    #178
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,819 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    dannym08 wrote: »
    when i said two breaks in the barrier i didnt literly mean 2 breaks in the barrier. i meant two auxilliary lanes going in and out of the station (still not a massive expense i would immagine).

    I dont kno why you wud hav to put in a bride. both carriageways dont nessescarily (forgive spelling) hav to access the same station. There can be seperate ones on both sides.

    Surely something like what is on the N7 around Rathcoole wouldn't be all that expensive or hard to do. The only extra thing you would need is a service road for staff. I know its not a motorway and it doesnt have the same restrictions but at that point it is really as good as a motorway with regard to the speed cars are travelling and no one has died there

    Two sets of facilities = double running costs going forward as well as higher set up cost (although a bridge will cost more than building a second station).

    The nearest we ever had to a 'proper' MSA, the pre-demolition Hamills on the Mullingar Bypass had barebones facilities Citybound to stop everyone needing to cross; and an underpass for people to get to the restuarant/car park/etc outbound.

    Also, the Esso station on the N7 at Rathcoole is lethal to get in and out of, and its a three lane road where most people ignore the inside lane for surreal reasons. On a two lane motorway, there aren't opportunities to pull in to the inside lane at 30mph and speed up. The Applegreen is less of a problem as it has a slip.


  • Options
    #179
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Ok guys, interesting as the discussion on service areas is, this thread is simply about the Cashel to Cullahill scheme. There are a few other threads on boards.ie that deal specifically with MSAs. For numerous examples, see here: http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=boards.ie+motorway+service+areas&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

    I realise that threads tend to develop organically, but this thread in particular has almost been derailed two or three times now.


  • Options
    #180
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    23 days to go... ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    G_R
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,024 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    MYOB wrote: »
    Two sets of facilities = double running costs going forward as well as higher set up cost (although a bridge will cost more than building a second station).

    The nearest we ever had to a 'proper' MSA, the pre-demolition Hamills on the Mullingar Bypass had barebones facilities Citybound to stop everyone needing to cross; and an underpass for people to get to the restuarant/car park/etc outbound.

    Also, the Esso station on the N7 at Rathcoole is lethal to get in and out of, and its a three lane road where most people ignore the inside lane for surreal reasons. On a two lane motorway, there aren't opportunities to pull in to the inside lane at 30mph and speed up. The Applegreen is less of a problem as it has a slip.

    NO ONE goes at 50km/h(30mph) on that road......its closer to 80 or 90km/h...and if a decent auxillary lane is provided they will be able to get up to 120 and then join...like a normal entrance to the motorway...

    and if you can get a private company, like Topaz, to run to the station there will be no running costs to the taxpayer...


    and i agree esso is bad....it was actually the applegreen one i was talking about


Advertisement