Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
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

The Tourist Route Schemes (National Secondaries)

«134

Comments

  • #2
    Jayuu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 823 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    What is a Type 3 Single Carriageway? I can't seem to find any official descrption anywhere. Most of the explanations I can find online seem to indicate that it has 2 lanes in one direction and one in the other. In what way is this different to a 2+1 road?


  • #3
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 74,541 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    2+1 is a "Type 3 Dual Carriageway", important distinction... this would seem to be a 7 or 8M carriageway, no H/S and segregated cycle lanes.

    I wonder if the N56 scheme is going to bypass Glenties? Makes no sense to end at what I assume is the junction with the R262 (which through traffic is directed to take to avoid Ardara and some terrible bends) if you still need to go through Glenties.


  • #4
    marmurr1916
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭marmurr1916


    Jayuu wrote: »
    What is a Type 3 Single Carriageway? I can't seem to find any official descrption anywhere. Most of the explanations I can find online seem to indicate that it has 2 lanes in one direction and one in the other. In what way is this different to a 2+1 road?

    This is from the Donegal Co. Council website:

    Type 3 Single Carriageway (T3SC) Pilot Project
    Lightly trafficked national secondary routes on the western seaboard often pass through highly scenic and environmentally sensitive areas. Such routes are often poorly aligned and narrow with frequent junctions/ accesses. Full scale improvements to reduced single or standard single carriageway standard would be difficult to justify from an economic perspective and would most likely result in unacceptable environmental impact. The Type 3 Single Carriageway road type (T3SC) is a lower standard than the reduced single carriageway and is being considered as an alternative option for improvements to these routes that takes into account both the low traffic volumes and the receiving environment.

    The section of the existing N56 from Dungloe to the Kilraine junction south of Glenties fits the criteria that the T3SC is aimed at. An analysis of traffic suggested it would be suitable as a T3SC pilot project and, following an application by Donegal County Council, it has been selected by the National Roads Authority as one of four pilot sites nationwide.


  • #5
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    MYOB wrote: »
    2+1 is a "Type 3 Dual Carriageway", important distinction... this would seem to be a 7 or 8M carriageway, no H/S and segregated cycle lanes.

    Good guess, great even . For the completists Wide Single is now gone and replaced by

    Standard = 3m Verge + 2.5m HS + 3.65+3.65 Carriageway + 2.5m HS + 3m Verge = 12m Pavement and 6m Verge ( probably Type 1 SC)

    Reduced Standard     = 3m Verge + 0.5m HS + 3.5+3.5 Carriageway + 0.5m HS + 3m Verge = 8m Pavement and 6m Verge ( probably Type 2 SC)

    TYPE 3 Single Carriageway ( T3SC ) = 1.5m Verge + 0m HS + 3.5+3.5 Carriageway + 0.0m HS + 1.5m Verge = 7m Pavement and 3m Verge

    It is what they built in Derrylea on the N59 , see this
    The carriageway width was designed to new DMRB design standards for low-flow rural roads with a new carriageway width of 7.0m with a 1.5m grass verge. The design was classed as a pilot scheme build for the new DMRB design standards

    I think the bicycle paths are extras, there seemingly is a Genuine Type 3 standard before the sops to the greens are included....except that it has already been piloted and built :)


  • #6
    Jayuu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 823 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    Thanks for those explanation and the link.

    So its an even lower standard single lane road. Can I ask is this an improvement on what is already there, given its such a lowish standard of road?


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 74,541 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jayuu wrote: »
    Thanks for those explanation and the link.

    So its an even lower standard single lane road. Can I ask is this an improvement on what is already there, given its such a lowish standard of road?

    Significantly so. If you read the DCC link they mention the N56 being as narrow as 5M in places, with extreme bends. The small section already built on the N59 is one of the best sections of that road.

    The bends in question are going to have to be mostly offline, and quite significantly so in one case (Gweebarra) as they run along a cliff face of sorts!


  • #8
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    http://www.pobail.ie/en/AboutUs/BriefingMaterialMarch2011/

    These appear to have been hidden from Leo is all I will say :cool:


  • #9
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,286 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Talking about the N59 on RnaG this morning, as well as the Moycullen bypass. Seems some work is proposed to start later this year. (just caught the tail end of conversation)


  • #10
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Moycullen no longer needs a Bypass...IMO. The problem is the lethal section for c.2km just east of the village which could be realigned online (ish) ...albeit at some cost. The 'redesign' exercise for this full offline bypass and which has cost €1m over the past 3 years is a pure waste of money. Jobs for the boys.

    The Bypass was designed offline in the late 1990s and this ongoing redesign exercise is a subsidy to some road engineers in Roscommon who have nothing much to do...that's all :( However Moycullen is not proposed as T3SC and is not relevant to this thread.


  • #11
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,286 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Moycullen no longer needs a Bypass...IMO. The problem is the lethal section for c.2km just east of the village which could be realigned online (ish) ...albeit at some cost. The 'redesign' exercise for this full offline bypass and which has cost €1m over the past 3 years is a pure waste of money. Jobs for the boys.

    The Bypass was designed offline in the late 1990s and this ongoing redesign exercise is a subsidy to some road engineers in Roscommon who have nothing much to do...that's all :( However Moycullen is not proposed as T3SC and is not relevant to this thread.

    Well original bypass was designed in the 70's! -- well as I said I caught the tail end of conversation. I believe it was specifically about Oughterard to Cliften (An Clochán), they just threw in mention of Moycullen as well at the end of the piece.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Hoof Hearted
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 96 ✭✭Hoof Hearted


    If they just implemented the following options which would be much cheaper than outright reconstruction, it would go a long way to improving the standard of these roads. No one is really calling for long sight lines for these roads after all they are secondary. (except for heavily traveled sections)

    1. Stop using "surface dressing" and used proper asphalt to surface these roads. Surface dressing is so third world like - it's rough, noisy, coarse, and wears tyres three times faster than asphalt, and gives a shìtty impression to foreigners/investors
    2. Bank these road properly to counteract g forces when encountering winding sections.
    3. Keep the road width consistent for a given section of road, sometimes this is just a matter of cutting back the foilage, patting a bit of tar down with a shovel.
    4. De-commission secondaries that aren't necessary.
    5. Did I say use asphalt? If not once again use asphalt to stop me cringing every time I go to Ireland. (Now 16 years in the US)


  • #13
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,275 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    My understanding was that the Moycullen bypass was to be Type 2 DC (ie 2+2) and be lumped in with the Galway Bypass once that was ready to go in one PPP.

    Of course with the GCOB in the courts and the PPPs down the tubes thats got little chance of happening.


  • #14
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Moycullen Bypass and Clifden-Oughterard are both suspended.

    http://www.galwaynews.ie/20906-two-galway-road-projects-suspended
    Transport Minister Leo Vradkar (sic) has ordered the NRA to halt work on the N59 Cliften to Oughterard secondary route and plans for the Moycullen Bypass.


  • #15
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 74,541 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    indo claims dungloe glenties is suspended too.


  • #16
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Indo List of suspensions
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/projects-in-the-pipeline-that-are-now-suspended-2842853.html

    N56 Dungloe to Glenties.
    N56 Mountcharles to Inver.
    N59 Clifden to Oughterard.
    N59 Moycullen bypass.
    N59 Westport to Mulranny.
    N86 Tralee to Dingle.
    N87 Ballyconnell inner relief road.


  • #17
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Indo List of suspensions
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/projects-in-the-pipeline-that-are-now-suspended-2842853.html

    N59 Westport to Mulranny.

    Keep an eye out for an 'unsuspension' or a partial unsuspension. :D

    This jobbie has been subdivided into sections A B and C and a Bord Pleanala Hearing on the EIS is expected to take place this year.

    http://www.regdesign.com/pdf%20files/N59Westport-Mulranny/NIS/MGE0237RP0007F01_NIS_Doc.pdf

    Meanwhile
    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Indo List of suspensions
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/projects-in-the-pipeline-that-are-now-suspended-2842853.html
    N86 Tralee to Dingle.

    4.2km was saved from the axe near Annascaul.

    http://etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=DEC297657

    I further understand that a smidge of N56 may go ahead too. It has a thread already but those schemes above will probably need one each :D

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71318469

    The N59 Oughterard - Clifden scheme will need an EIS according to a direction last October from An Bord Pleanála. The EIS may be funded this year.


  • #18
    Quackster
    Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 6,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quackster


    The CPO notice for the rest of the N86 Camp-Dingle scheme was published in the Kerryman two weeks ago. It ran to more than 30 pages!


  • #19
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Take the money off these dopey Kerrymen :(

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0125/1224310709923.html
    THE WORLD-famous scenic route winding its way to Dingle through mountains and overlooking the Atlantic Ocean along by Inch Strand is to be straightened out under plans by Kerry County Council and the National Roads Authority.
    It is also to be a pilot scheme for the NRA’s new “type-three single-carriageway” road, with one-way cycle lanes on either side of the three-metre-wide single-lane carriageways.
    However, some tourist operators in the region are raising concerns that the character of the traditional road into the west Kerry Gaeltacht will be lost under the project, which is likely to be completed over four years.

    Ho Ho Ho , make that 40 years lads.


  • #20
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    This "cycle lanes" on rural roads model is unworkable unless they have the money to constantly sweep them. The standard hard shoulder is more effective and provides a better level of service for cyclists.


  • #21
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    This "cycle lanes" on rural roads model is unworkable unless they have the money to constantly sweep them. The standard hard shoulder is more effective and provides a better level of service for cyclists.

    These very rural Type 3 or 'Low Volume' (or T3SC here on Boards harking back to the unsearchable three letter acronym days) road types have no hard shoulder dude. Cycle lanes are optional, some will have them some not.

    The road type is appropriate for most user classes but if you wish to make the NRA change its mind then cycling interests should perhaps make a COLLECTIVE case for using Reduced Standard ( known as Type 2 Single Carriageway) on scenic routes like this.

    From further up in the thread. Road Types. > http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68991474&postcount=5 . All single carriageway National Roads are designed to these standards as are regional roads too I should think.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Ok we may be talking across each other here. Our position is that if the "road" (as opposed to "roadway") is being widened to the point that there is room for either cycle lanes or hard shoulders, then the better option for the cyclists is to use the standard yellow hard shoulder aka "road verge" marking.

    Within the current Irish context, hard shoulders are viewed as having significant advantages over cycle lanes, particularly for rural roads


  • #23
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    I don't think the point had been adequately made to the NRA. Would a 0.5m hard shoulder be enough for you guys anyway or would you perhaps prefer a Scenic Variant Type 2 with wider hard shoulders??

    The other thing to remember is that what suits an off roader/mountain biker and what suits eg a triathlete on a racing bike is yet another variance...so try to remember what kind of cyclist you are representing here. :D


  • #24
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    I don't think the point had been adequately made to the NRA. Would a 0.5m hard shoulder be enough for you guys anyway or would you perhaps prefer a Scenic Variant Type 2 with wider hard shoulders??

    No the minimum width would be 2m (less and cyclists can end up getting less clearance from passing motor traffic than if nothing was marked at all). For rural roads 2.5 - 3m would be better.

    To explain the width issue, in a Galway context, I would advise cyclists not to enter the cycle lanes in Parkmore as they are only 1m wide. On the Western Distributor road the cycle lanes are only 1.5m wide so I would tend to cycle along the lane marking.


  • #25
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    I don't think the point had been adequately made to the NRA. Would a 0.5m hard shoulder be enough for you guys anyway or would you perhaps prefer a Scenic Variant Type 2 with wider hard shoulders??

    The other thing to remember is that what suits an off roader/mountain biker and what suits eg a triathlete on a racing bike is yet another variance...so try to remember what kind of cyclist you are representing here. :D

    If you are using cycle lanes instead of hard shoulders then in my view road cyclists are less likely to use that space. Therefore it is my conclusion that using cycle lanes instead of hard shoulders on rural roads carries increased risk of fatal collisions and reflects extremely poorly on the judgement of those involved.

    While road cyclists will not use the kind of stuff mountain bikers use, I cannnot imagine it the other way around, that mountain bikers would refuse to use a surface a road cyclist would be happy with.


  • #26
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    In that case I strongly suggest you engage the NRA on the Standards in use. Only the S1 Standard (as in the bit between Bushypark and East of Moycullen) comes with the Hard shoulders you want.

    S1 is overkill in most rural areas but a cycle friendly Reduced S2 Variant with 2m instead of 0.5m Hard Shoulders would suffice.

    At present no such standard exists in the design manual which means it cannot be designed and built ....and your first stop must be the Design Manual ....it comes from NRA HQ.

    Once the Design Manual permits it it may happen. I would consider it a jolly good idea on National Secondaries in Galway Mayo Donegal Clare Sligo Cork and Kerry...even Wicklow.

    The first person I would talk to is Michael Ring. In the case of the Mayo Greenway they will take cyclists and walkers offline and can then build a Type 3 Road for motorised vehicles. It may not be that simple elsewhere.

    Also find out what happened to this long haul plan ?? http://www.transport.ie/pressRelease.aspx?Id=85 . In a lot of cases they can use former national Roads with the hard shoulder you require.


  • #27
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    The Oral hearings for the Moycullen bypass were on this week. The 3 day hearing completed yesterday. A decision on the project is expected by the end of June.

    The Project documentation on the Galway County Council website, here's a brief summary (have just skimmed the summary doc).
    The proposed road is 4.3km "standard single carriageway" and will be connecting to the existing N59 approx 1.5km south & 2 KM north of the village. The preferred route goes to the east of the village.

    203459.jpg

    Here are the highlights from the articles published on www.galwaynews.ie (linked below):
    Approx cost €40m
    Expected traffic reduction in Moycullen village 65%
    Expected traffic increase during works 20%
    Land acquisition 324 plots of land from 105 landowners
    59 Submissions - Dept AHG, Inland Fisheries, 55 landowners (5 were widthdrawn) & two others (not detailed)
    Peter Sweetman can't find a good reason to object:
    Environmental campaigner Peter Sweetman made an oral submission to the bypass at todays hearing.

    He said he wants to make sure that if it's approved, it's approved by Irish and European law.


    ****e we all want that, kinda proves he's nothing but an interfering, publicity chasing (contra charter set of insults).

    Brief reports from Galwaynews:
    http://www.galwaynews.ie/25573-hearing-moycullen-bypass-opens-today
    http://www.galwaynews.ie/25576-oral-hearing-moycullen-pass-underway
    http://www.galwaynews.ie/25578-oral-hearing-told-moycullen-pass-will-take-two-years
    http://www.galwaynews.ie/25585-day-two-hearing-moycullen-bypass
    http://www.galwaynews.ie/25630-moycullen-bypass-hearing-concludes


  • #28
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    The serious dip and bridge on the Uggool/Clydagh boundary is holding up around €250m worth of Windfarm projects that are through planning or in planning in Connemara.

    The turbines simply cannot be brought as far as Moycullen on the existing road. They are rather long you see. :)

    Bridge shown on the map where the "A" is in "An Chlaidhdí" . I won't comment on Sweetman who was representing something with a name like "Snails and Swans Limited" at the hearings. Why he couldn't go 'as himself' I don't know...it is probably to limit potential costs in a future court case.

    I'd charge him with reckless trading on the spot. :(


  • #29
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    If this takes the traffic off the section of the N59 immediately south of Moycullen then these works would be very welcome. That is a nasty stretch of road on a bike. Ideally they could close that stretch to through motor traffic altogether and use it as a walking and cycling route. Then the main issue would be to tackle the short section after the Glenlo Abbey hotel and we would have a half decent commuter cycling route from Galway to Moycullen.


  • #30
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    If this takes the traffic off the section of the N59 immediately south of Moycullen then these works would be very welcome. That is a nasty stretch of road on a bike. Ideally they could close that stretch to through motor traffic altogether and use it as a walking and cycling route. Then the main issue would be to tackle the short section after the Glenlo Abbey hotel and we would have a half decent commuter cycling route from Galway to Moycullen.

    Thats the stretch. Unfortunately it will not be closed to through traffic as there will be a junction between the old and new roads around there just west of the existing bridge in the dip. Traffic will be reduced of course and it could all be a 50kph zone.

    The Glenlo 'chicane' is to be done as part of the Galway Bypass and when the land is acquired for the bypass it could be immediately bulldozed straight so that motorists can see cyclists in the bend.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    cargo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭cargo


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    The serious dip and bridge on the Uggool/Clydagh boundary is holding up around €250m worth of Windfarm projects that are through planning or in planning in Connemara.

    The turbines simply cannot be brought as far as Moycullen on the existing road. They are rather long you see. :)

    Bridge shown on the map where the "A" is in "An Chlaidhdí" . :(

    where's the bridge SB?

    Is this it?

    http://g.co/maps/xjk2t


Advertisement