[Article] Dual-carriageway speed limit increased to 120kph

jd

It would be nice if they included sections of the N11 too...


http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1620868&issue_id=14104

Dual-carriageway speed limit increased to 120kph


DUAL-CARRIAGEWAY speeds increased yesterday on the day the Taoiseach pleaded with drivers to slow down to cut road carnage.
The new €231m N2 route through Co Meath yesterday became the first dual-carriageway in the country to have a speed limit of 120kph, it was learned.
This is 20kph more than the speed limit on all other dual-carriageways . . . and the same as on a motorway.
The Irish Independent has also exclusively learned that the National Roads Authority (NRA) is planning to introduce similar speed increases on dual-carriages nationwide.
These are located along the big inter-urban routes from Dublin to Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford.
The proposed higher speed limits will affect both existing and planned new dual-carriageways.
Only those dual-carriageways which have freeflow junctions, on-off interchanges, no roundabouts or traffic lights, or right hand turns will have their speeds increased.
Michael Egan, NRA corporate affairs manager, revealed yesterday that the authority was examining similar speed limit increases on other dual-carriageways.
"We are talking about dual-carriageways on the five inter-urban routes, that there would be 120kph.
"The limit of 120kph is likely to be the norm," he added.
"We are in favour of the upward adjustment where safety considerations would be satisfied," said Mr Egan.
This would only happen where the dual-carriageway had no roundabouts or traffic lights and was accessed by overpasses and underpasses to avoid conflict with other traffic.
There was no physical difference between high-grade dual-carriageways and motorways.
It is understood in the case of the new N2 dual-carriageway that senior engineers inspected all of the bends along the 17km stretch to ensure it was capable of taking the 120kph speed.
Local authorities and the NRA have the power to increase the speed limits under legislation introduced when the country switched over to metric limits two years ago.
AA spokesman Conor Faughnan said he believed most road safety experts would not have an issue with the increase if it was confined to high-grade dual-carriageways capable of handling a 120kph "cruising speed".
However, he said the increased limit highlighted an ongoing difficulty in relation to speeds.
"Some limits are just set too high. For example, you can have an 80kph limit passing directly in front of a school. Other limits are absurdly low."
Meanwhile, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern yesterday criticised delays to a new motorway to replace a killer road on which nine people died in the past nine months alone.
The M3 motorway from Dublin to Cavan via the Tara Valley should have been completed by the end of the year.
But the project has been held for the past two years by opponents concerned about its impact on the Hill of Tara.
Mr Ahern said "not a thistle has yet been cut" on the motorway.
"People are suggesting a series of bypasses. We have continuing protests and work has not started. Nine people have died in the past nine months."

cormie

That's good but I can't help but be concerned about the inexperienced drivers who wouldn't dare go on a motorway because of the high speeds, but have no problem going on the dual carriageways, they could be a big hazard.

Our man in Havana

Do councils have the power to impose lower limits (<100 km/hr) on N roads?

murphaph

Bond-007 wrote:

Do councils have the power to impose lower limits (<100 km/hr) on N roads?

Yup. Happens all the time! O'Connell St has a 20 limit I think, no higher than 30 anyway, and it's the N1! Same goes for all towns that N roads run through.

road_high

This is the total common sense approach.Why should a high quality dual-way have only 100kmh limit when a two lane N road can have the same but obviously is much higher risk for accidents.A good move.

Our man in Havana

murphaph wrote:

Yup. Happens all the time! O'Connell St has a 20 limit I think, no higher than 30 anyway, and it's the N1! Same goes for all towns that N roads run through.

I understand that, but i mean outside of urban areas can the limit be reduced to take into account the poor road.

murphaph

Bond-007 wrote:

I understand that, but i mean outside of urban areas can the limit be reduced to take into account the poor road.

Yup, plenty of 60 and 80 stretches on N roads with poor alignment/sightlines. Last one that springs to mind is on the N9 south of Moone & Timolin, long 80 stretch there.

Victor

DUAL-CARRIAGEWAY speeds increased yesterday on the day the Taoiseach pleaded with drivers to slow down to cut road carnage.

Stupid statement. Only this particular section of road is getting a 120km/h limit, implemented through the normal bye-law mechanism.

O'Connell Street has a 30 km/h limit imposed with a roadworks order. The NRA are refusing to allow a permanent 30 km/h limit.

Genghis

So what is the actual difference between a dual-carriageway that qualifies for 120kph speed limit and a motorway? Because an alternative route is not provided?

Vireo

Can't understand why all speed limits are generally one of the followng: 30/50/60/80/100 and 120 km/h. There are occasions when 70, 90 and 110 km/h would be more advisable. They might even use the odd 65 or 95 etc. Did they not make any signs for these :rolleyes:

Victor

This particular one needs to allow access for a small number of private entrances.

Andrew Duffy

There are no private entrances onto the new section of N2 dual carriageway, but it severs the connection between the old N2 and the M50. To improve access to the properties on the old N2 that are very close to the M50 junction there is a very grotty Northbound offslip about 200m North of the M50. It's sharp and ends at a T-junction.

mysterious

Andrew Duffy wrote:

There are no private entrances onto the new section of N2 dual carriageway, but it severs the connection between the old N2 and the M50. To improve access to the properties on the old N2 that are very close to the M50 junction there is a very grotty Northbound offslip about 200m North of the M50. It's sharp and ends at a T-junction.

I seen that though if they went to that bother they should put an on slip there to the new N2

nordydan

hopefully they will do this on the N1/A1 road as well, when the newry bypass is revamped this would be the only 100kph stretch from the M50 to belfast. i believe this to be the case as its designed to HQDC status on both sides

Chris_533976

I'm all for this on certain sections of N road (for example NOT Midleton - Cork), but I still cant see the sense in not upgrading to the M classification.

Once again, it seems like they're taking the cheap option. Reclassify a DC rather than just do what every other country would do - and properly classify it as an M road.

But at least the roads built for 120 can now be used at 120.

Aidan1

it seems like they're taking the cheap option.

How? The roads are built to exactly the same standard as motorways, the only real difference to the physical road is the colour of the signs. TBH I don't understand the fuss, the HQDCs will have 120kph limits, fully grade separated junctions, and will run into each other with no breaks. Who cares if the line on the map is blue or not?

MrPudding

Chris_533976 wrote:

I'm all for this on certain sections of N road (for example NOT Midleton - Cork), but I still cant see the sense in not upgrading to the M classification.

Once again, it seems like they're taking the cheap option. Reclassify a DC rather than just do what every other country would do - and properly classify it as an M road.

But at least the roads built for 120 can now be used at 120.

I think the issue is what are the alteratives. Remember, don't laugh now, learner drivers are not actually allowed on the motorways. If these N roads were upgraded to M roads then all the learners would, seriously don't laugh, have to use the crappy country roads.

MrP

Litcagral

Does anyone know why the R132 (Old N1) has an 80kph limit? When it was much busier, prior to the opening of the M1, it had a 60mph limit. It seems odd that the limit was reduced once the road became quieter!

yaledo

Vireo wrote:

Can't understand why all speed limits are generally one of the followng: 30/50/60/80/100 and 120 km/h. There are occasions when 70, 90 and 110 km/h would be more advisable. They might even use the odd 65 or 95 etc. Did they not make any signs for these :rolleyes:

There are lots of reasons, here's the simplest one: By using only a limited number of speeds, it is easier to remember what the speed limit is. If, on a single journey, I passed through zones with 20 different speed limits, I would be more likely to forget what the limit is in the zone I'm in.

If idiots like me are to be allowed to use the road, then signposting has to be simple enough that I can understand them. I think that Dublin city introduced a complex but efficient system of directional signposts a few years back, and this caused uproar because people didn't understand how they worked, and they were promptly removed.

Unfortunately, erring on the side of the intellectually hard-done-by is the same reason that they removed the bleeps (for the blind) from pedestrian crossings in Dublin.

We could solve all this by eliminating all the lackwits, but then who would run the country?

murphaph

Aidan1 wrote:

How? The roads are built to exactly the same standard as motorways, the only real difference to the physical road is the colour of the signs. TBH I don't understand the fuss, the HQDCs will have 120kph limits, fully grade separated junctions, and will run into each other with no breaks. Who cares if the line on the map is blue or not?

Foreign investors care. They look at infrastructure amongst other things when deciding on expansion etc. If our nation looks like it's covered by a network of single carriageway roads (when in fact they're motorways), we are potentially doing ourselves out of business. Other (continental) countries try to classify as much road as possible as motorway to make their maps look better, us and the brits do the opposite and are way to hard on ourselves over motorway classification.

Chris_533976

MrPudding wrote:

I think the issue is what are the alteratives. Remember, don't laugh now, learner drivers are not actually allowed on the motorways. If these N roads were upgraded to M roads then all the learners would, seriously don't laugh, have to use the crappy country roads.

MrP

Good. Keep them off the good roads. That way they get practice driving on difficult roads and the good roads are safer.

Aidan1

Foreign investors tend to be more interested in mean travel times and the cost of moving material than whether lines on maps are blue or green. The quality of the infrastructure is what matters, and that will show up in any of the figures available.

Do you really believe that an investor starts with a map of two countries and goes "oooh, look at all of those blue lines, I'll invest my €500m there"? Investment decisions of any magnitude are made on much broader and more detailed criteria than that.

In any case, the decision to designate these roads HQDC rather than M-way has obviously been taken for a number of reasons, the primary one being legal and relating to compensation. Its not a skit, or is it laziness on behalf of anyone, its merely a way of avoiding a very real problem that would cost the taxpayer quite a lot of money. There is nothing standing in the way of a mass re-designation at a later stage.

jd

Aidan1 wrote:

In any case, the decision to designate these roads HQDC rather than M-way has obviously been taken for a number of reasons, the primary one being legal and relating to compensation. .

Could you elaborate on this?
jd

murphaph

Aidan1 wrote:

Foreign investors tend to be more interested in mean travel times and the cost of moving material than whether lines on maps are blue or green. The quality of the infrastructure is what matters, and that will show up in any of the figures available.

Do you really believe that an investor starts with a map of two countries and goes "oooh, look at all of those blue lines, I'll invest my €500m there"? Investment decisions of any magnitude are made on much broader and more detailed criteria than that.

In any case, the decision to designate these roads HQDC rather than M-way has obviously been taken for a number of reasons, the primary one being legal and relating to compensation. Its not a skit, or is it laziness on behalf of anyone, its merely a way of avoiding a very real problem that would cost the taxpayer quite a lot of money. There is nothing standing in the way of a mass re-designation at a later stage.

Hold on a second. Mean travel time data while important, cannot reliably inform a prospective investor of the likely future travel times. A brief look at a map can reveal whether or not a country has invested in the future and may reveal how likely mean travel times will be in 10 or 15 years. You need to know what infrastructure is in place/planned before investing, not just relying on travel time data which could change dramatically. I'm not suggesting foreign investors only look at roadmaps when evaluating prospective sites, of course not, but they do pull out maps and look at what's in place and planned. Any investor who doesn't is very unwise and we are unwise to fail to designate all motorway compatible new builds as motorways from day one. Compensation is an issue but it didn't stop the M1 being built. A policy change has occured which is not welcome IMO.

Your last sentence in bold is a little puzzling. Either we classify them as D2AP to save money on compo now and leave it like that or classify as D2M and pay up. If you wait to reclassify later you still have to compensate, only you have costed yourself in redoing all the markings and signage, including the signage on all the approach roads!!

Aidan1

Mean travel time data while important, cannot reliably inform a prospective investor of the likely future travel times

... which any even remotely serious investor will be well aware of also. It may well be the case for very low level investors, but for those involved in projects of any size, meetings with the LA's, Govt departments and the IDA/Forfás are all par for the course. In many cases they are more familiar with future developments than the private citizen.

Either we classify them as D2AP to save money on compo now and leave it like that or classify as D2M and pay up. If you wait to reclassify later you still have to compensate, only you have costed yourself in redoing all the markings and signage, including the signage on all the approach roads!!

Not necessarily. There are a number of possible ways around it. And if they don't pan out, the state still has Motorway quality roads in place. Like many other issues, its a risk management exercise.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer if these were all designated M-ways, not least because of the safety issues involved with slow/learner drivers, but in the circumstances this is a workeable compromise.

Nuttzz

Chris_533976 wrote:

Good. Keep them off the good roads. That way they get practice driving on difficult roads and the good roads are safer.

yeah and the back roads become death traps :rolleyes:

its a good idea, when the next section of the N6 opens in 12/07 (27km of Dual Carriageway) hopefully it will be at 120 like the m4

murphaph

Aidan1 wrote:

Not necessarily. There are a number of possible ways around [compensating landownwers following reclassification of D2AP to D2M at a later stage]

Such as what? I've had a good read of the 1974 legislation on motorways and it seems pretty watertight to me. If a permananent denial of access from adjoining land is imposed by a motorway order, compensation is payable. The level of compensation can be reduced by providing accomodation bridges etc. but these are provided on a HQDC just the same as a motorway, so no further reduction in compensation can be 'worked out' and as I said before, there is the (not insignificant) cost of signage on the mainline and all approach roads that mention the road concerned, as they will all need patching to include motorway legend panels. I know you are in favour of m-way from the get-go but I disagree that we should believe the issue is a minor one when it just requires a bit of government nerve to drive these projects to completion as m-way from day one. We are selling ourselves short by not going m-way and as you rightly point out, the door is left open for learners and mopeds and peds and cyclists, making a very safe road in theory into quite a dangerous one.

Stark

murphaph wrote:

We are selling ourselves short by not going m-way and as you rightly point out, the door is left open for learners and mopeds and peds and cyclists, making a very safe road in theory into quite a dangerous one.

If you're worried about learners making the road dangerous by making mistakes, then you also need to look out for all the stupid things the other drivers on the road do. The main problems on the motorway are drivers not keeping regular speed on the motorways, slowing down and speeding up at random, braking suddenly before turning onto sliproads, hogging the overtaking lane, overtaking without indicating etc. None of which are the sole domain of learner drivers.

The only advantages of motorways I see is that the minimum speed limit is supposed to be 80kph but I've never seen that enforced and I doubt most people know about it.

As for cyclists, that could be easily solved by providing segregated cyclepaths if only the powers that be would get off their ass and do it.

Blitzkrieger

About time. Maybe one day they'll realise just how slow 120kph is on those type of roads.

I was going to bitch about their exclusion of roads that have roundabouts on them, because just about every dual-carriageway begins and ends in one. Then I realised that you can rarely reach 120kph on the urban dual-dualcarriageways I was going to use as examples for all the morons crawling along at 50mph in the overtaking lane so they won't have to move over for the roundabout two miles ahead.

murphaph

Stark wrote:

If you're worried about learners making the road dangerous by making mistakes, then you also need to look out for all the stupid things the other drivers on the road do. The main problems on the motorway are drivers not keeping regular speed on the motorways, slowing down and speeding up at random, braking suddenly before turning onto sliproads, hogging the overtaking lane, overtaking without indicating etc. None of which are the sole domain of learner drivers.

Separate issue. Jst because some 'qualified' drivers are p!ss poor at driving does not mean we say "ah sure fcuk it, let everyone on the road". We aim to improve driver training and testing, that's the separate issue.

Stark wrote:

The only advantages of motorways I see is that the minimum speed limit is supposed to be 80kph but I've never seen that enforced and I doubt most people know about it.

Motorways have numerous advantages, not just speed related. They are far safer than other roads due in no small part to the restrictions placed on them. Btw, there is no minimum speed on a motorway in Ireland at present. Vehicles must all be capable of 50km/h but there is no compulsion to travel at this speed at present.

Victor

Blitzkrieger wrote:

I was going to bitch about their exclusion of roads that have roundabouts on them, because just about every dual-carriageway begins and ends in one.

Roundabouts are useful for encouraging a change in attitude.

unkel

So 120km/h on the N2 and
100km/h on the M50 southern stretch?

Is that because of all those terms used such as 'D2AP' and 'D2M' you guys mention? What are these? Are these to do with compensating multi-millionaire farmers whose land these new roads are built on? Why?

murphaph

unkel wrote:

So 120km/h on the N2 and
100km/h on the M50 southern stretch?

Is that because of all those terms used such as 'D2AP' and 'D2M' you guys mention? What are these?

No, it's because the M50 southern cross and SE motorway traverse the foothills of the Dublin mountains. The sightlines/braking distances are poorer than the N2 and the crosswinds may be a factor too.

D2AP is Dual 2 lane All Purpose, ie, nop motorway style restrictions on the vehicles or drivrs that may use it. (it could be a high quality dual carriageway or a standard one with median crossings, generally all D2AP being built in Ireland is high quality, ie, fully grade separated with no median crossings, just like a motorway)

D2M is Dual 2 lane Motorway, physically the same as HQD2AP*


(the N2 amongst others is D3AP for some of its length of course).

*not a recognised acronym that one, made that up!

unkel wrote:

Are these to do with compensating multi-millionaire farmers whose land these new roads are built on? Why?

In part, almost certainly!

corktina

my guess on whether a road is desginated M or N has to do with the viability of the remaining infrastructure after a Mway is built (for non-motorway traffic....)
ie if the new road replaces the old with no alternative available for non-mway traffic, then it should be an N wheras if the new road is in addition to the old system then it can be an M

murphaph

corktina wrote:

my guess on whether a road is desginated M or N has to do with the viability of the remaining infrastructure after a Mway is built (for non-motorway traffic....)
ie if the new road replaces the old with no alternative available for non-mway traffic, then it should be an N wheras if the new road is in addition to the old system then it can be an M

But this simply isn't the case for most of what's planned. The entirety of the N6 from Kinnegad to Athlone will be offline new build (as will almost all new interurban dual carriageway) which leaves the old road intact. It's got a lot more to do with placating/compensating landowners than any technical reason.

Victor

murphaph wrote:

No, it's because the M50 southern cross and SE motorway traverse the foothills of the Dublin mountains. The sightlines/braking distances are poorer than the N2 and the crosswinds may be a factor too.

Apparently the M50 thing was down to noise, nothing else.

jlang

Victor wrote:

Apparently the M50 thing was down to noise, nothing else.

Noise originally may have been the overriding factor in the preliminary design, but the design speed was 100kph and that was what the curves were designed for. Doesn't really matter because the upgrade will definitely be 100 - design speed and posted limit.

The design speed on some of the "free-flow" ramps on the upgraded interchanges will be as low as 30kph - still better than 0 when stopped at a traffic light but it's awful slow. Also, some of the ramps will only really be one vehicle wide which is fine until a truck breaks down and has to be towed away or there's a shunt. At least on the wide roundabouts, that only causes a delay, not a complete blockage.

unkel

Thanks murphaph for explaining that. Not that it makes much sense to me

jlang wrote:

Noise originally may have been the overriding factor in the preliminary design, but the design speed was 100kph and that was what the curves were designed for

Crosswinds and curves and line of sight, etc. do not seem to be a problem @120km/h, surely?

As for noise, what one does is build a noise-reducing wall in relevant areas to eliminate the problem. Was this never considered?

jlang wrote:

The design speed on some of the "free-flow" ramps on the upgraded interchanges will be as low as 30kph - still better than 0 when stopped at a traffic light but it's awful slow

That's very slow. Ideally they should be designed to maximum motorway speed, but if there's not enough space, you'd expect at least 80km/h. Then again it's much better than traffic lights

jlang wrote:

the upgrade will definitely be 100 - design speed and posted limit

After the upgrade, is the whole of the M50 going to be 100 or just the southern cross part where the limit is currently 100?

murphaph

unkel wrote:

Thanks murphaph for explaining that. Not that it makes much sense to me

You're welcome Unkel!
Roads are classified thus;
S1 (single carriageway, single lane, think country boreen with grass in he middle!)
S2 (single carriageway, 2 lanes)
WS2 (wide single carriageway, 2 lanes-a lot of the N road network is like this, hard shoulders generally visible)
D2/3/4* (Dual carriageway, 2, 3 or 4 lanes each side etc. Note there is no accepted way of implying a dual carriageway with say 3 lanes on one side and 2 on the other, weird but there you go. The * can be AP for all purpose or M for motorway).
Oh, and not forgetting 2+1 whch we'll be seeing a lot more of.

unkel wrote:

After the upgrade, is the whole of the M50 going to be 100 or just the southern cross part where the limit is currently 100?

100 everywhere. The lanes are being reduced from 3.75m to 3.5m in width along almost the entire M50.

unkel

Thanks again, Philip. I understand now

murphaph wrote:

Oh, and not forgetting 2+1 whch we'll be seeing a lot more of

Yeah they seem to refer to it as the "Swedish system", but it is quite common in most continental countries, notably France where it is used as a climbing lane (2 lanes up, 1 lane down). A good replacement for WS2 if D2 is not quite necessary

murphaph

unkel wrote:

Yeah they seem to refer to it as the "Swedish system", but it is quite common in most continental countries, notably France where it is used as a climbing lane (2 lanes up, 1 lane down). A good replacement for WS2 if D2 is not quite necessary

The jury is still out on 2+1 in many quarters. If drivers all behaved in a responsible manner then S3 would be better than 2+1. We never had S3 in Ireland tro my knowledge but they had plenty of it in Britain (slowly being converted to 2+1). It requires you to drive on the left and overtake in the middle 'suicide lane'. If people only overtake when it's safe to do so then S3 provides faster journeys as you won't generally be caught behind a tractor on the single lane side as can happen on 2+1. Unfortunately driver behaviour makes 2+1 preferable in many instances. There are issues even on 2+1 where drivers accelerate dangerously to 'cut in' front of that tractor just before the 2 lane section givew way to 1 lane to avoid being stuck behind a slow moving vehicle for a kilometre. It all works better in Sweden because the mentality is different.

unkel

murphaph wrote:

The jury is still out on 2+1 in many quarters. If drivers all behaved in a responsible manner then S3 would be better than 2+1. We never had S3 in Ireland tro my knowledge but they had plenty of it in Britain

:eek:

I sure hope they'll never go back to S3. In theory they are fine but in practice they're utter carnage...

The last time I was on an S3 was nearly 20 years ago in France. IIRC it was the oldest road from Bordeaux in the southwest direction (towards Arcachon), which was superseded by both a newer Autoroute and a newer Route Nationale. In fact it is probably the only time I ever drove on an S3 myself

S3 was common in many countries many years ago, e.g. in the Netherlands most intercity national roads were S3. They were all replaced by motorways back in the 60s

unkel

Here's a pic of an S3 in the UK:

Victor

Parts of the N8 in Cork were / are effectively S3, but is it really just lots of climbing lane (actually signed "slow lanes") joined together.

murphaph

Climbing lanes are 2+1 configurations. A 'true' S3 looks like the picture unkel posted. No hatching, no prohibitions on overtaking from any lane. In theory it would be legal to overtake a car in the middle lane by overtaking it on the right most lane. So you could legally have all 3 cars headed the same direction stretching beside each other across the road. That's why they're so dangerous because people act the maggot on them. Shame really, they could be really useful.

Victor

That would be "interesting" with the curve in that picture. :eek:

Our man in Havana

There was a S3 section in Cork city for years heading out from Turners Cross towards the model farm road. Scary times! :eek:

Victor

Victoria Cross maybe? You mean Wilton Road? The lower section was 4-lane and the upper section was 2-lane (I think it later got a bus lane)

Our man in Havana

Yes indeed victor. Still dangerous though.

Our man in Havana

Here is an S4 in Britain.


:eek: :eek:

Victor

Hmmm, odd that the central lanes look wider than the side lanes (where one expects more of the trucks).