N4 - Collooney to Castlebaldwin [open to traffic]

KrisW1001 · 27-10-2020 1:50pm

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.

Looks to be 3 m wide, which is the "desired minimum" for a shared, two-way bike+pedestrian path on a route with expected low volumes of pedestrians and/or cyclists.

I don't even ride a bike, but I think this requirement is one of the best ideas in a long time, as it eventually will create a national cycle-way network that will not just open up large parts of the country to cycle tourism, but also make it safer to use a bike in rural areas (thinking specifically of kids going to/from school). The benefits for pedestrians are good too: anything's better than using the hard shoulder with only a few dashes of yellow paint between you and high-speed traffic...

Pete_Cavan · 27-10-2020 4:38pm

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 · 27-10-2020 7:14pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

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?

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.

Pete_Cavan · 27-10-2020 9:36pm

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 · 28-10-2020 11:01am

Yes, the discussion in that thread was prompted by the presentation.

A pedestrian/cycle route has to be provided on new projects, but sometimes that may be on the old, bypassed, route - but as I understand it, this requires special dispensation. The preferred approach is to build a pedestrian and/or cycle path within the project corridor itself.

The long delays between projects getting planning and actually starting to build means that some "later" projects may not have the same requirements as "ealier" ones. If N22 does have a dedicated cycle lane, the project PR people have never mentioned it...

serfboard · 28-10-2020 5:44pm

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.

KrisW1001 · 28-10-2020 6:24pm

serfboard wrote: »

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

It certainly is interesting, but thanks go to marno21 for posting it originally on another thread.

I think this 2+2 road type finally offers a really cost-effective way of finally getting the cross-country routes sorted.

Truth is, we have very few primary routes that carry enough traffic to warrant a full motorway (i.e., at least an average of 25,000 vehicles per day), but once you get off the inter-urban motorways, there's a huge drop in road standards with lots of pretty dangerous single-carriageways. Replacing with 2+2 will make these safer and faster to use without the waste of money of a motorway-standard road for routes that would carry 10,000 vehicles a day at their busiest.

veryangryman · 28-10-2020 7:16pm

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 · 29-10-2020 9:44am

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.

riddlinrussell · 29-10-2020 12:02pm

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 · 29-10-2020 1:07pm

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.

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:

riddlinrussell · 29-10-2020 1:18pm

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)

serfboard · 29-10-2020 1:42pm

riddlinrussell wrote: »

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

Legal? Yes. Dangerous AF? Absolutely. When I'm appointed the MinisterDictator for Transport, cyclists will be banned from all dual carriageways - it's simply too unsafe.

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Orbital traffic is always going to be less than radial traffic anyway ... so a cycling bypass of a town is going to be less used than a public transport/car bypass.

Indeed - but having going to the trouble of putting in a cycle lane on a bypss, the cyclists won't use it! So what's the point?

And in most cases, there were existing routes in place before the bypass was built, so it's not as if the cyclists don't have a by-now quieter alternative.

And just to clear where I'm coming from, as you'll be aware from my other postings, I'm 100% in favour of segregated cycle lanes and spaces, such as Greenways, for cycling. Build spaces for cyclists and get them off the (busy) roads - for their own safety.

But if cyclists are not going to use these cycle lanes beside 2+2s, what's the point in building them?

Pete_Cavan · 29-10-2020 1:49pm

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 · 29-10-2020 1:51pm

serfboard wrote: »

Legal? Yes. Dangerous AF? Absolutely. When I'm appointed the MinisterDictator for Transport, cyclists will be banned from all dual carriageways - it's simply too unsafe.

Indeed - but having going to the trouble of putting in a cycle lane on a bypss, the cyclists won't use it! So what's the point?

And in most cases, there were existing routes in place before the bypass was built, so it's not as if the cyclists don't have a by-now quieter alternative.

And just to clear where I'm coming from, as you'll be aware from my other postings, I'm 100% in favour of segregated cycle lanes and spaces, such as Greenways, for cycling. Build spaces for cyclists and get them off the (busy) roads - for their own safety.

But if cyclists are not going to use these cycle lanes beside 2+2s, what's the point in building them?

Absolute nonsense. The segregated paths on the Tralee and Castleisland bypasses are perfect for pedestrians but are not very useful for cycling on (unless very slowly) due to being two-way shared paths of very limited width.

Grand for children and nervous cyclists who are willing to yield to pedestrians where necessary but most cyclists are better off on the mainline where they can be very easily passed out. The vast majority of roads are not the preserve of motorised vehicles.

serfboard · 29-10-2020 1:54pm

Quackster wrote: »

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

killed or seriously injured.

CatInABox · 29-10-2020 2:11pm

serfboard wrote: »

killed or seriously injured.

Ironically enough, cyclist injuries are pretty rare on these roads, as cars are usually quite a distance away.

Local, narrow roads though? Those are pretty unsafe for cyclists.

Quackster · 29-10-2020 2:20pm

serfboard wrote: »

killed or seriously injured.

On a 100kph road that's safer than 100kph single-carriageways? I don't think so and the evidence wouldn't support it either.

The pedestrian/cycle paths on the Castleisland and Tralee bypasses were not part of the original designs but were retrofitted after the fact. Therefore they had to be squeezed into the predetermined land-take and are deficient in width as a consequence.

So you really think cyclists should be forced onto these deficient paths where they'd create an additional hazard for pedestrians?

I walk the Tralee bypass fairly regularly and come across the odd cyclist (usually kids) moving at a leisurely pace which is fine. If the path were suddenly inundated by cyclists racing along, I wouldn't be able to walk it any more.

riddlinrussell · 29-10-2020 3:06pm

Quackster wrote: »

On a 100kph road that's safer than 100kph single-carriageways? I don't think so and the evidence wouldn't support it either.

The pedestrian/cycle paths on the Castleisland and Tralee bypasses were not part of the original designs but were retrofitted after the fact. Therefore they had to be squeezed into the predetermined land-take and are deficient in width as a consequence.

So you really think cyclists should be forced onto these deficient paths where they'd create an additional hazard for pedestrians?

I walk the Tralee bypass fairly regularly and come across the odd cyclist (usually kids) moving at a leisurely pace which is fine. If the path were suddenly inundated by cyclists racing along, I wouldn't be able to walk it any more.

And as I said before, we are talking about two very different types of cyclist, show me the satisfactorily quiet link roads/designated protected cycle paths that the 'slow' cyclist is confident to ride on linking to these routes, if they don't exist the road will be used only by road confident cyclists who will get there on the not fit for all cycling purpose roads, and shockingly, want to cycle on the road.

Regarding the use of 'alternative' routes, I would definitely be in favour of the segregated route being applied alongside the old road it supersedes, my fear would be that they will designate the old road as a 'designated cycle route' throw up some bike signposts and call it a day, with the route being entirely unsuitable for bikes.

veryangryman · 29-10-2020 8:51pm

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.

riddlinrussell · 29-10-2020 9:31pm

veryangryman wrote: »

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.

Agreed, at present cross country routes are seen as almost exclusively touristic, thus a path on a roadside is seen as crazy because theres little tourism value. But, if a network was built up you might get an increase in use of cycling both village to town and inter-village in the countryside, as well as towns to cities.

KrisW1001 · 30-10-2020 12:14pm

The separate cycleway on this project is 3 km long:

As part of the project a new 3km cycleway from Toberbride will be constructed and will join the existing N4 at Doorly.

Source: https://www.n4realignment.ie/n4-project

Total scheme length is 13-ish km of 2+2, but the first 2.8 km is an online upgrade - this is the part that coincides with the new cycle lane. I suspect that the old, bypassed, N4 road will be the designated cyclist/pedestrian route once the new alignment opens. Sounds like a cop-out, but if you take 90% of today's traffic volumes off it, that old road looks like a pretty safe route for cycling, with very few bad bends or blind junctions.

riddlinrussell · 30-10-2020 1:22pm

KrisW1001 wrote: »

The separate cycleway on this project is 3 km long:

Source: https://www.n4realignment.ie/n4-project

Total scheme length is 13-ish km of 2+2, but the first 2.8 km is an online upgrade - this is the part that coincides with the new cycle lane. I suspect that the old, bypassed, N4 road will be the designated cyclist/pedestrian route once the new alignment opens. Sounds like a cop-out, but if you take 90% of today's traffic volumes off it, that old road looks like a pretty safe route for cycling, with very few bad bends or blind junctions.

I've raised it before in the greenways thread, but I would like to see the design manual for these sorts of 'rural road' cycleways' updated to meet the current Dutch practice for such roads, making a number of psychological changes to the road layout to discourage fast speeds. and where appropriate still separate cars from vulnerable users.

Pete_Cavan · 30-10-2020 1:38pm

KrisW1001 wrote: »

The separate cycleway on this project is 3 km long:

Source: https://www.n4realignment.ie/n4-project

Total scheme length is 13-ish km of 2+2, but the first 2.8 km is an online upgrade - this is the part that coincides with the new cycle lane. I suspect that the old, bypassed, N4 road will be the designated cyclist/pedestrian route once the new alignment opens. Sounds like a cop-out, but if you take 90% of today's traffic volumes off it, that old road looks like a pretty safe route for cycling, with very few bad bends or blind junctions.

As I alluded to previously, I suspect what has happened here is that the design/planning of this scheme predates the requirement for the ped/cyclist way along 2+2 roads. I'd say the new single carriageway parallel road where the 2+2 is online is built to a road type which requires a ped/cyclist way (I think this is Type 3 SC) and hence why it only extends that length. The old, bypassed, N4 road may be the designated cyclist/pedestrian route but that would not be related to this project.

marno21 · 30-10-2020 1:43pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

As I alluded to previously, I suspect what has happened here is that the design/planning of this scheme predates the requirement for the ped/cyclist way along 2+2 roads. I'd say the new single carriageway parallel road where the 2+2 is online is built to a road type which requires a ped/cyclist way (I think this is Type 3 SC) and hence why it only extends that length. The old, bypassed, N4 road may be the designated cyclist/pedestrian route but that would not be related to this project.

Indeed. This project and the N5 2+2 under construction were approved for planning in 2014. They are quite old schemes and it was funding restrictions that held them back from construction until now.

I’d expect the 2+2s in planning atm to take this into consideration. We’ll see next year when the 3 Donegal 2+2s go to ABP

riddlinrussell · 30-10-2020 2:37pm

marno21 wrote: »

Indeed. This project and the N5 2+2 under construction were approved for planning in 2014. They are quite old schemes and it was funding restrictions that held them back from construction until now.

I’d expect the 2+2s in planning atm to take this into consideration. We’ll see next year when the 3 Donegal 2+2s go to ABP

I suppose its just the nature of how long schemes take to plan and come to construction. Similar to the issue with forestry, our current requirements are relatively good (always could be better) But the currently mature plantations people see are the particularly bad ones of the 70s/80s.

I would hope some of the bypassed routes of the last 20 years could see an 'Active mobility retrofit' scheme in the near future.

m17 · 30-10-2020 4:53pm

The last of the 87 beams going in to place on the seven overbridges

mistermatthew · 24-11-2020 11:29am

This may be of interest to you:

Engineers Ireland NW host virtual site visit to the N4 Collooney to Castlebaldwin Road Scheme.

This virtual site visit to the N4 C2C Construction site will give attendees an insight into the progress of the N4 design and construction works to date, detailing various aspects of the design and construction works such as alignment, geotechnical, structures and pavement. Some interesting topics being discussed include vertical band drains, use of cement bound granulated material, lime stabilisation, environmental mitigation measures as well as lined grass channels and SuD’s systems.

Tis event is free and open to non-members of Engineers Ireland. Registration can be made at the following link: https://www.engineersireland.ie/Events/event/7191

specialbyte · 03-12-2020 4:44am

Video of the Engineers Ireland event is now up on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXJGZI4vX78

serfboard · 03-12-2020 6:41pm

specialbyte wrote: »

Video of the Engineers Ireland event is now up on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXJGZI4vX78

Watched only a couple of minutes of it, but did glean the information that the opening is now scheduled for Q3 next year.

KrisW1001 · 04-12-2020 10:18am

The presenters talk through a flyover of the whole scheme at about 50 minutes in, which is interesting even for people like me who are not civil engineers, as they explain what's happening along the whole project.

steeler j · 04-12-2020 4:01pm

specialbyte wrote: »

Video of the Engineers Ireland event is now up on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXJGZI4vX78

A very informative video

MY BAD · 23-02-2021 8:08pm

https://www.facebook.com/sligocountycouncil/videos/1590691051128960/

marno21 · 25-02-2021 6:52pm

https://www.n4realignment.ie/newsletters/q3-q4-2020-newsletter/

Q4 2020 newsletter. As can be seen in the video in the previous post, the majority of the offline work seems to be reaching completion. Just the online upgrade of the 3km outside Collooney to be completed.

Q3 2020 looks very good for this to open.

14-04-2021 11:15pm

Some photos taken approximately halfway along the route looking north and south, taken on Saturday 10th. There is still a lot of work to do on the tie-ins at both ends. I would expect this project might be completed by early to mid July.

godskitchen · 15-04-2021 7:37pm

Anyone know the story with the old stone 2 story house on the northern end that is being propped up at the gables?

Could they not knock it?

18-04-2021 9:48am

Some photos of the route at Cloonamahon, where the offline alignment meets the section being widened all the way to Toberbride.

18-04-2021 9:51am

Some more. I hadn't a chance to park and take photos at the roundabout in Castlebaldwin for obvious reasons, but I stand corrected on what I said last week. It's practically complete. It won't take much to finish the tie in to the roundabout which is only a bout 200 metres or so.

BelfastVanMan · 13-06-2021 8:35am

A few pics of the Castlebaldwin end of the scheme, yesterday.

BelfastVanMan · 13-06-2021 8:40am

Near the roundabout.

BelfastVanMan · 13-06-2021 8:50am

Same spot.

scooby77 · 13-06-2021 10:39am

Wonder when they expect to be finished?

spacetweek · 13-06-2021 11:18am

scooby77 wrote: »

Wonder when they expect to be finished?

The last we heard was August. Seems achievable.

BelfastVanMan · 13-06-2021 1:22pm

spacetweek wrote: »

The last we heard was August. Seems achievable.

I asked a Roadbridge fella on site yesterday if it was still on track for an August opening, and he said yes.

13-06-2021 2:37pm

BelfastVanMan wrote: »

I asked a Roadbridge fella on site yesterday if it was still on track for an August opening, and he said yes.

Has Roadbridge definitely got the contract for the Ballaghaderreen bypass to Scramogue project? If so, it'll be a very handy move of machinery only 45 minutes or so down the road.

BelfastVanMan · 13-06-2021 5:02pm

HabibiLibneni wrote: »

Has Roadbridge definitely got the contract for the Ballaghaderreen bypass to Scramogue project? If so, it'll be a very handy move of machinery only 45 minutes or so down the road.

Completely forgot to ask. :-/

ryanch09 · 14-06-2021 10:56am

Noticed yesterday evening at the point where it splits off from the old road if you're heading castlebaldwin direction you can see they've the lines painted, so some sections of it are obviously ready to go

dakar · 15-06-2021 1:49pm

They are making good progress at the northern (Collooney) end. As mentioned above, road marking is done on stretches at Cloonamahon. They are now working on surfacing at the tie in to the N4 at the second roundabout at Collooney.

These photos are from the new Tubberbride overpass 350 meters from the Collooney roundabout.

Looking south towards Cloonamahon:

Looking north to the Collooney roundabout:

20-06-2021 10:23pm

Some photos I took today of the new road.

20-06-2021 10:28pm

I have to upload them bit by bit

N4 - Collooney to Castlebaldwin [open to traffic]

Comments