Ireland fails to plan yet again

E92

Why oh why are the NRA insistant on using standard Dual Carriageways for designing new roads? They can only go 100 km/h(at least thats their design speed apparantly). Of course, thats better than a 2+1 type of road, but why not just go that extra mile and use the HQDC format, which is really Motorway by another name.

I ask this cause I checked the NRA's website yesterday and I noticed that apart from the Inter Urban routes, they seem to be proposing to use Standard rather than HDQC, which is a cop out IMO.

ucdperson

Money. Not all roads can be motorways.

E92

ucdperson wrote:

Money. Not all roads can be motorways.

I know that but what we save by this cheaper design today we pay tomorrow bigtime because with lower speed limits we can't get about our business as quickly, making us less competitive. Besides, its not like a Standard DC can carry more traffic than a HQDC(Motorway), or indeed vice versa.

Anyway, a standard DC is built to the same standards other than the design speed and exits.

corktina

100 k is quite fast enough until we have raised our driving standards by a lot

you cant have HQDC everywhere because of the limited access to them I guess..It just isnt always feasible.

ucdperson

E92's argument implies that there should not be a class of road between single carriageway and motorway class roads. I think there is a case that some roads are not busy enough for full motorway treatment but need something more than S2. You can argue that a given road should be done in certain way, but I think the concept of a few different types of road is not illogical.

John R

We have a small population on a small Island, apart from Dublin and Belfast there are no major population centres.

In international terms the other "cities" would barely register for dual carriageway links never mind the extensive motorway network that many people crave.

corktina

John R wrote:

We have a small population on a small Island, apart from Dublin and Belfast there are no major population centres.

In international terms the other "cities" would barely register for dual carriageway links never mind the extensive motorway network that many people crave.

quite right..my home town is a LOT bigger than Cork and yet doesnt figure in the top 100 UK towns and cant get City status....it has no outer ring road and an incomplete inner one....it is not linked to anywhere by dual carriageway or M'way EXCEPT that the M4 passes close by

E92

John R wrote:

We have a small population on a small Island, apart from Dublin and Belfast there are no major population centres.

In international terms the other "cities" would barely register for dual carriageway links never mind the extensive motorway network that many people crave.

In the UK, the 5 biggest cities are connected to each other by Motorway. What is so special about this country that we can't have Motorways, which will connect Dublin to Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford(not to be fair we have only 2-3 years more to wait if there are no more cutbacks in between), Cork to Limerick, Galway/Waterford, Limerick to Waterford etc? And don't tell me that there is a big gap in population, I'm aware of that, but nevertheless, you cant expect pepole to have to drive down boreens and cart tracks of roads, especially when they are supposed to be the main roads of the country.

We have a ridicluous 170 miles of Motorway in this country - thats only just over the distance from Cork to Dublin! Now bearing in mind that the UK(incl NI) has 2164 miles of M-way(on only twice the land mass we have), and Germany which has roughly 50% more inhabitants(than the UK) yet 200% more Motorway(at 7600 mls), and you quickly see that my moaning is very well justified.

I know that building M-ways is a very expensive thing to do, I'm not so naive to think that we can change this all in the morning.

But I'm not thinking of today, I'm thinking of tomorrow. Everyday we're told that there will be more and more people coming here to live and work here. So these fancy road networks will not be even so much of a craving , because in time, what will happen knowing Ireland is that we will say oh why didn't we just do it properly in the 1st place, and then to correct a mistake which should never have happened in the first place, which will be a needless waste of the taxpayers money which could be used on something else which is crucial to our economy like investing in Education or on other roads or even public transport.

I don't see why it should be a roads vs rail/ bus etc, why not invest in both(but preferably roads first)?

This country can't afford to go backwards, or perhaps more accurately stay still on things like these. And we know what Mary Harney famously said about standing still. She said that standing still was going backwards.

NedNew

Hi E92, what are miles?

I think Miles is an abbreviated form of Micahel, no?

Oh, what are those distances in km please? Then I can relate.

constellation

NedNew wrote:

Hi E92, what are miles?

I think Miles is an abbreviated form of Micahel, no?

Oh, what are those distances in km please? Then I can relate.

1 miles = 1.609344 kilometers

AlekSmart

David McWilliams and his Uraguayan comparisons keep returning to haunt me........ :eek:

bryanw

I would imagine that the 2+2 is more than adequate for most areas of the country. If everything that's planned falls into place, I think we are heading in the right direction. The inter-urban motorways should be fine for quite a few years to come - at least in rural areas. Its only urban areas that experience chronic traffic problems on a regular basis. That's where the future planning is really needed. Drive on any stretch of rural motorway outside peak and its quite empty.

For Dublin - we should be building motorways with the long term in mind. And what must be done it to ensure that there is an extensive public transport system in place, which helps keep traffic moving, and doesn't interfere with it.

Just to take a North American approach to roads, where most of the main roads within the city should be DC. Just 2+2 or whatever. This helps junction layout as well as anything else - there are far too many badly layed out junctions. Unfortunately for Dublin, its easier said than done - where would be find the space to upgrade to 2+2?

Obviously my opinion stands for regional cities too, on a smaller scale.

We don't need motorway linking every Bally- to every Kill- ...

E92

ucdperson wrote:

E92's argument implies that there should not be a class of road between single carriageway and motorway class roads. I think there is a case that some roads are not busy enough for full motorway treatment but need something more than S2. You can argue that a given road should be done in certain way, but I think the concept of a few different types of road is not illogical.

I don't think that there should be a class of road between S2 and Motorway, where it is possible.

I mean, in this country we have R roads, N roads with no hard shoulder, N roads with a hard shoulder, N roads with wide hard shoulders and lanes, N roads with 2+1, N roads with 2+2, N roads with standard Dual Carriageway where you can turn around in the middle of them because there are exits (N18 Limerick-Shannon), N roads with Standard DC where you can only exit to the left, N roads with Motorway standard DC(HQDC), and finally Motorways. Thats 10 different types of roadway!

In European roads, they have Motorways, normal single carriageways, sometimes with a bit of DC, and rural roads. So 4 types at most.

I know you can't just magically change over existing roads to just one in 4 types, but my point is that in the future, we should be building either single carriageway with proper width roadways and hard shoulders, or Motorways.

I don't see why the West of Ireland or even down here in Cork should be left out in this often talked about National Motorway network. If they are going to build DCs, then the location of where they are being built shouldn't matter, they should be Motorways. And if a 4 lane M-way isn't enough(and there are plenty of roads in Dublin where this isn't), then you need 6 lanes or even 8 lanes, and that isn't enough, you cant simply build your way ouf of congestion(in plenty of parts of the country it is simply not possible to widen the road anyway), then it is time for investment in Undergrounds, Luas, more frequent bus services etc

Ham'nd'egger

We don't have ten classes of road E92, we have 4; they being M, N, R and unclassified so to speak, with N roads being National and Regional, a sub class if you will. The standard that a road is built to ought not to be confused with road classification; budget, road use, local environment, land owners and necessity will determine what sort of a standard a road is brought to; this is the case all over Europe.

E92

Hamndegger wrote:

We don't have ten classes of road E92, we have 4.

Where did I say that we had 10 classes of road? I said we had 10 types of road, not 10 classes of road.

And anyway, you left out one class of road, the L roads:p .

Capt'n Midnight

[old chestnut]
If we added lay-by's every 1-2km to those N roads that had a hard shoulder that was fit to be driven on, and arranged lines on roads to guide drivers to the left and enforced the Keep Left rule then we could have an overnight increase in the number oaf places where you could overtake safely.

This should also have a huge knock on effect on safety since you could wait for the good section to overtake the morons who hog the centre of the road.

And those ads on the TV about safe overtaking are a complete waste of money unless they also address the problem of people obstructing traffic by driving to the right and not accelerating when being overtaken. :mad:

John R

E92 wrote:

In the UK, the 5 biggest cities are connected to each other by Motorway. What is so special about this country that we can't have Motorways, which will connect Dublin to Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford(not to be fair we have only 2-3 years more to wait if there are no more cutbacks in between), Cork to Limerick, Galway/Waterford, Limerick to Waterford etc? And don't tell me that there is a big gap in population, I'm aware of that, but nevertheless, you cant expect pepole to have to drive down boreens and cart tracks of roads, especially when they are supposed to be the main roads of the country.

It looks like I HAVE to explain to you that population is the reason why we do not NEED them. Of course if your point is to justify them at all costs then yes, feel free to ignore the minor issue of who all these high-capacity roads are being built for. :rolleyes:

With a few exceptions most of our major routes are not boreens or cart-tracks and the solution to this is to upgrade them to a decent standard not wildly over-build them to motorways with all the extra expense and environmental damage that causes.

The number using the roads speak for themselves, even Dub-Cork south of Portlaoise does not generate the numbers that are generally considered necessary to require motorways.

These figures were posted on boards some time ago, I cannot be bothered looking them up again just to prove the blindingly obvious.

The only places that major bottleknecks occour on our main roads are in towns where traffic flow is blocked. Once away from towns they are generally free-flowing with only the poor driving of many Irish motorists slowing progress.

Small scale by-passes for all towns like many regional A roads in the less populated areas of the UK would be more than adequate for our traffic levels.

E92 wrote:

We have a ridicluous 170 miles of Motorway in this country - thats only just over the distance from Cork to Dublin! Now bearing in mind that the UK(incl NI) has 2164 miles of M-way(on only twice the land mass we have), and Germany which has roughly 50% more inhabitants(than the UK) yet 200% more Motorway(at 7600 mls),

Ireland, Pop: c 4 million. UK, Pop: c 60 million. That is 15 times less. 2164 divided by 15 is 144. we already have more miles of M/Way per person than the UK.

The UK to a small extent and Germany to a large extent also needs to cater for traffic travelling through their countries, we have virtually none.

How about Scotland, a much closer population spread to Ireland than the UK or Germany. Population 5 million, over half of which is confined to a single region. Motorway mileage: 250m.

E92 wrote:

and you quickly see that my moaning is very well justified.

No it isn't, you are just following the typical trend seen so clearly in the pro WRC camp of deamanding motorways for your small patch of the world because other places have them. That might seem reasonable but it is not. Motorways should be built only if the need for them is proven, IMO for most of Ireland it has not been.

Ham'nd'egger

E92 wrote:

Where did I say that we had 10 classes of road? I said we had 10 types of road, not 10 classes of road.

And anyway, you left out one class of road, the L roads:p .

I never said you did say that; you clearly misread what I said. I said...

The standard that a road is built to ought not to be confused with road classification, something you seem to be thinking. Mind you, you seem to be misreading every other post here as the key fact is that much of the country doesn't needs any dual carriageway due to low population numbers.

By the way, L roads are what were known as unclassified roads. They all will have allocated numbers; few however have any signage of same.

Zoney

The regional cities should be linked to one another by motorway, as well as to Dublin.

It's about being able to get between them quickly and safety, not about capacity. Even the Dublin-Cork route has less than 10,000 AADT in the middle of it - less than the Dublin-Waterford route has up to the Kilkenny diverge. Quite rightly no one would suggest not having motorway all the way between Dublin and Cork. It's about having decent road standards (note, not specifically capacity) on the national transport corridors , i.e. the main national primary routes.

In many cases traffic volumes are too high for single carriageway anyway, and 2+1 or British style "general access" dual carriageway with at grade junctions (or 2+2 - no hard shoulder) are an unsafe nonsense. While it's not reasonable to build all dual carriageway routes with the smooth curves and 120km/h design of motorways, I think they should all have motorway restrictions. They just aren't safe for general access. Just slap a 100km/h limit on the parts that can't handle 120km/h.

E92

John R wrote:

With a few exceptions most of our major routes are not boreens or cart-tracks and the solution to this is to upgrade them to a decent standard not wildly over-build them to motorways with all the extra expense and environmental damage that causes.

Good god I must be seeing double, because I can tell you for a fact that the bits of the road which are not Motorway/DC from Cork to Dublin are VERY poor for a road that connects the biggest city in the country to the second biggest. Parts of it don't even have a hard shoulder. Is that a "decent standard"? You clearly haven't gone on the road from Cork to Limerick, Ennis to Galway, Cork to Tralee, Cork to Waterford anytime recently. There are some bits which are of a high standard (as in HQDC), but you end up going through bottlenecks, boreens and cart tracks. Drive them and tell me that I am lying.

Please don't tell me that Motorway travel is MORE damaging to the enviornment than non M-way travel. Because that is simply untrue. Unless you try to go at top speed on a German Autobahn(though most of them unfortunately have speed limits these days). What is VERY bad for the enviornment is the stop start driving on roads that exist at the moment because there are not enough bypasses at the present. Driving slowly is very bad for the enviornment. Driving at Motorway speeds is actually very good for the enviornment because you are going at a constant speed(well at least you should be) and because at speeds between 100-130 km/h cars are actually very efficient. Driving slowly or having to speed up and slow down, and even cornering increase a car's fuel consumption adversely.

John R wrote:

The number using the roads speak for themselves, even Dub-Cork south of Portlaoise does not generate the numbers that are generally considered necessary to require motorways.

These figures were posted on boards some time ago, I cannot be bothered looking them up again just to prove the blindingly obvious.

The only places that major bottleknecks occour on our main roads are in towns where traffic flow is blocked. Once away from towns they are generally free-flowing with only the poor driving of many Irish motorists slowing progress.

You're missing the point. Maybe today, there is no need for them(though I would strongly disagree with that a lot of the time), but I'm not thinking about today, I'm thinking about tomorrow. If we merely build single carriageways(which can only go 100 km/h), what will happen is that in the future, with all the extra population that the country is meant to be having, we will end up having to build these Motorways anyway, so why not do it now, rather than building substandard roads, and then spending extra to do a job right that should have been done right the first time later?

John R wrote:

Small scale by-passes for all towns like many regional A roads in the less populated areas of the UK would be more than adequate for our traffic levels.

NO they would not be. The Nenagh and Croom bypasses prove it. They now have to be upgraded to Dual Carriageway, because of the short sightedness of the Government of the time. And they only opened 10 years ago!

murphaph

E92 wrote:

In European roads, they have Motorways, normal single carriageways, sometimes with a bit of DC, and rural roads. So 4 types at most.

Eh? That's just plain wrong. Germany (just for pig iron) has S1, S2, WS2, Grade separated S2, Grade separated D1 (this is particularly interesting as it implies no speed limit unless otherwise posted), (at grade) D2, expressways in urban areas (like Autobahns-no pedestrians or cyclists but not a full autobahn-denoted by the 'happy car' symbol), Autobahns with hard shoulders, Autobahns without hard shoulders (especially in the old east), Autobahns with speed limits and without. I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting but the point is that other countries do have 'in-between' categories.

E92

E92 wrote:

They now have to be upgraded to Dual Carriageway, because of the short sightedness of the Government of the time. And they only opened 10 years ago!

I don't know what was originally planned for these roads, but in the UK many "A" road upgrades/bypasses are designed as dual carrriageways and built as single carriageways and "upgraded" to dual carriageway if (when) traffic volumes dictate. Dualling roads designed this way has little impact on traffic as the existing road is (largly) unaffected. It's also more cost effective in the short term, better to build 30km of single carriageway than 20km of dual carriageway and leave 10km of bad road.

The above assumes that a dual carriageway is not needed NOW!

razda07

corktina wrote: »

quite right..my home town is a LOT bigger than Cork and yet doesnt figure in the top 100 UK towns and cant get City status....it has no outer ring road and an incomplete inner one....it is not linked to anywhere by dual carriageway or M'way EXCEPT that the M4 passes close by

please tell me your home town that has a bigger population than cork but is not in the top 100 towns in britain? is this an exagerration?

Irish and Proud

corktina wrote: »

quite right..my home town is a LOT bigger than Cork and yet doesnt figure in the top 100 UK towns and cant get City status....it has no outer ring road and an incomplete inner one....it is not linked to anywhere by dual carriageway or M'way EXCEPT that the M4 passes close by

OMG!!! :eek:

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know what was originally planned for these roads, but in the UK many "A" road upgrades/bypasses are designed as dual carrriageways and built as single carriageways and "upgraded" to dual carriageway if (when) traffic volumes dictate. Dualling roads designed this way has little impact on traffic as the existing road is (largly) unaffected. It's also more cost effective in the short term, better to build 30km of single carriageway than 20km of dual carriageway and leave 10km of bad road.

The above assumes that a dual carriageway is not needed NOW!

Closer to home, this was done with the Banbridge Bypass. Welsey Johnston's site has photos of it as a single carriageway road, with the cutting wide enough for a dualler but unbuilt - http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/roads/a1completed.html. Its dualler now of course - but according to the site it lasted 11 years as a single carriageway.

Lennoxschips

In the UK, the 5 biggest cities are connected to each other by Motorway.

These cities are quite a bit bigger than Ireland's Top-5 "cities".

r3nu4l

John R wrote: »

We have a small population on a small Island, apart from Dublin and Belfast there are no major population centres.

In international terms the other "cities" would barely register for dual carriageway links never mind the extensive motorway network that many people crave.

corktina wrote: »

quite right..my home town is a LOT bigger than Cork and yet doesnt figure in the top 100 UK towns and cant get City status....it has no outer ring road and an incomplete inner one....it is not linked to anywhere by dual carriageway or M'way EXCEPT that the M4 passes close by

I can't agree with this. Cambridge is a teeny-tiny city by UK standards (population 108863, 2001 census) yet is served by the M11, A14 and A11. That's one Motorway, one HQDC and one dual carriageway.

Cork city has a population of over 119418 people, while Galway city has (admittedly only) 72414 people, yet neither get even half the treatment Cambridge gets!

r3nu4l

razda07 wrote: »

please tell me your home town that has a bigger population than cork but is not in the top 100 towns in britain? is this an exagerration?

Irish and Proud wrote: »

OMG!!! :eek:

I doubt he's joking, Cambridge City, with it's 108000 people only comes in at about 170 on the list of most populated UK cities and towns...
Of course if you look at Wikipedia it jumps to 57th but the population also jumps by about 9000 people...

Ireland is a tiny place and apart from Dublin our cities are really, really small. Ipswich has a population of 138,718 (bigger than Cork 'city') yet is only classed as a town. The only reason Cambridge is a city is thanks to the status of the University all those years ago and a royal decree that gave it city status hundreds of years ago. It wouldn't qualify today.

All of that said, if places like Cambridge can have motorway and 2 DC's serving them then Cork at least should have better high quality infrastructure.

invincibleirish

Corks city limits havent being expanded in nearly half a century. The Citys official population doesnt include bits of Togher/Douglas/Grange/Bishopstown/Wilton despite them being well and truly part of the citys urban fabric. Then if you include outer suburbs like Ballincollig/Carrigaline/Glanmire etc. Corks 'metropolitan' population is anything from 250k to 350k, depends on where you want to draw the line at.

Take that Cambridge!

Shame Cork gets bracketed in with other *cities* which have a fraction of the population it does but get waaay more per spending per capita. 1 flyover instead of 3, 6 Double deckers instead of 12, 1 continously delayed Railway, 1white elephant terminal. Oh dear.

r3nu4l

invincibleirish wrote: »

Take that Cambridge!

My comparison still stands, as I included only the city boundary of Cambridge and not places like Cambourne, Milton, etc... Add another 150000 or more. Either way my point stands, if Cambridge can be served by a proper motorway and two DCs why the hell can't a quaint little burg like Cork??

invincibleirish

r3nu4l wrote: »

My comparison still stands, as I included only the city boundary of Cambridge and not places like Cambourne, Milton, etc... Add another 150000 or more. Either way my point stands, if Cambridge can be served by a proper motorway and two DCs why the hell can't a quaint little burg like Cork??

Perhaps we're looking at it from a wrong point of view. Is there anywhere in the UK as small as say oh i dont know, Waterford which has a full Motorway Bypass, and in time the option of 2 toll free Motorways/DCs linking with the capital?, is there anywhere in the UK as tiny as Claremorris which enjoys such excellent rail connections? is there any part of the UK which is as densely populated as the west with an option of so many airports to use?

We dont like proper planning in Ireland do we? Infrastructure is there to be fought and won for by politicians, who cares about congestion and public transport in the urban areas when whats important is to get our own shiny Railway/Motorway to our place in the sticks, irrespective of cost or need, thats not important.

fricatus

invincibleirish wrote: »

Is there anywhere in the UK as small as say oh i dont know, Waterford...

I see you're back up on your anti-Waterford hobby horse again. Any chance you might bash somewhere else for a change? You're like a broken record, butty. :rolleyes:

r3nu4l

invincibleirish wrote: »

Perhaps we're looking at it from a wrong point of view. Is there anywhere in the UK as small as say oh i dont know, Waterford which has a full Motorway Bypass, and in time the option of 2 toll free Motorways/DCs linking with the capital?, is there anywhere in the UK as tiny as Claremorris which enjoys such excellent rail connections? is there any part of the UK which is as densely populated as the west with an option of so many airports to use?

Not sure but let's look at it yet another way. I've lived in Cambridge and worked in London in the past. Therefore there is a real need for the infrastructure that currently exists (road and rail) as Cambridge is in itself a commuter city for London as well as having it's own indigenous industries that attract workers from smaller towns to Cambridge.

So, I'm sure that there are plenty of people living in Waterford that work in Cork and vice-versa, what's wrong with providing those commuters (and the towns en route) with decent infrastructure and transport links? Until that happens the major urban centres will remain the big draw for big industries. Having decent infrastructure between smaller cities in Ireland will encourage more industry for those areas and help stem the drain of people from these cities to Dublin. Dublins infrastructure cannot cope with the amount of people in the city and it will only get worse, not better.

AugustusMaximus

invincibleirish wrote: »

Perhaps we're looking at it from a wrong point of view. Is there anywhere in the UK as small as say oh i dont know, Waterford which has a full Motorway Bypass, and in time the option of 2 toll free Motorways/DCs linking with the capital?, is there anywhere in the UK as tiny as Claremorris which enjoys such excellent rail connections? is there any part of the UK which is as densely populated as the west with an option of so many airports to use?

We dont like proper planning in Ireland do we? Infrastructure is there to be fought and won for by politicians, who cares about congestion and public transport in the urban areas when whats important is to get our own shiny Railway/Motorway to our place in the sticks, irrespective of cost or need, thats not important.

You're nothing but a troll, looking for a reaction with your persistent anti-Waterford stance.

Lennoxschips

So, I'm sure that there are plenty of people living in Waterford that work in Cork and vice-versa, what's wrong with providing those commuters (and the towns en route) with decent infrastructure and transport links?

You're sure there are plenty?

How many people exactly are living in Waterford city and working in Cork city? 10? 20?

Should we be pursuing a policy that actively encourages massive commutes?

Have we all gone mad?

How about we create jobs in Waterford for the people living in Waterford? And build houses in Cork for the people working in Cork?

Lennoxschips

My comparison still stands, as I included only the city boundary of Cambridge and not places like Cambourne, Milton, etc... Add another 150000 or more. Either way my point stands, if Cambridge can be served by a proper motorway and two DCs why the hell can't a quaint little burg like Cork??

Firstly, the M11 is a feeder motorway for one of the largest cities on the planet. It links London to the north and northeast, including Stansted airport. It happens to go past Cambridge.

And despite this, Cork already has more dual carriageway than Cambridge. There is the South Ring stretching from Bishopstown to Dunkettle (including a tunnel scheme), the dual carriageway to Middleton and a motorway to Dublin. Then there's dual carriageway as far as Blarney as well.

What Cambridge does have is a decent bus system, with dedicated bus lanes being built all over the place. Cork doesn't have that at all.

invincibleirish

Lennoxschips wrote: »

And despite this, Cork already has more dual carriageway than Cambridge. There is the South Ring stretching from Bishopstown to Dunkettle (including a tunnel scheme), the dual carriageway to Middleton and a motorway to Dublin. Then there's dual carriageway as far as Blarney as well.

What Cambridge does have is a decent bus system, with dedicated bus lanes being built all over the place. Cork doesn't have that at all.

Indeed, but whats really happened is that we've spent billions over a very long time on a never ending roads programme which is only now finishing its first phase. Public transport spending has been miniscule in comparison, off the top of my head but isnt the number of people using Public Transport to get to/from work in the single % figures?.

Yet the country, and in particular the urban areas are as gridlocked as ever, the most effective measure that seems to be reducing congestion is economic recession!

I just get the impression that we as a nation will realise that the last 10 years of lavish spending could have been spent better and more efficiently.

BrianD

E92 wrote: »

I know that but what we save by this cheaper design today we pay tomorrow bigtime because with lower speed limits we can't get about our business as quickly, making us less competitive. Besides, its not like a Standard DC can carry more traffic than a HQDC(Motorway), or indeed vice versa.

Anyway, a standard DC is built to the same standards other than the design speed and exits.

Standrd DC's with grade separated junctions are more than adequate for this country. The truth is that beyond J4 on the M1, it's an under utilised road. Same applies elsewhere in the country. Put extra lanes in urban areas and it's just an extra lane backed up.

Even if our populatio was to go back up to pre-famine levels these standard DC's would be more than able to cater for traffic. With the price and future availability of fuel in question, it's likely we will see a reduction in traditional cars. I'm not sure if electric models can hit 120K yet and if they are efficient at this speed.

The higher speed of a m-way does not make us more competitive or speed up business. Feight is moved by trucks which are speed limited by law - 80KPH - same with buses. You would have to be a long distance commuter for the higher speed limit to make much of a difference to your commute.

L1011

There is an electric car which can reach 201km/h - and thats speed limited.

BluntGuy

M6, M7, M8... I support them all in their current format. M9, I'm half in support of (it's not being anti-Waterford), it's just my own opinion.

On the M8 the other day during rush-hour near Mitchelstown, the sheer amount of traffic made me realise why the road was necessary. Honestly, for a moment I thought it was busy enough to be D3M. It was certainly more traffic than the old N8 could've handled.

I just wish we had a motorway network rather than just motorways. I don't see the point in building miles of high-quality road and then not connecting them properly. Think M7/M9, think M7/M8, think M50/M1, think N8/N25... all atrociously connected.

And before anybody says why we need so many motorways compared to the UK. Compare and contrast. The UK has a very decent A-road network, we, by comparison do not.

If the majority of the national primary and national secondary routes were of at least a decent S2 or WS2 standard, perhaps I would be looking at this differently. As it stands, motorways are the safest, quickest way of transporting people from A to B. And let's not even bring the R and L routes into this *shudder*.

Also, just to put things in perspective, the AADT capacity of a good single-carriageway is roughly 9000 (not the rubbish we generally have here - I'm thinking of roads like the Moone bypass, Cahir bypass etc.). A D2M motorway is roughly 52,000 (98,000 for D3M). A 2+2 is roughly 20000 (maybe 25,000, I can't remember of the top of my head).

invincibleirish

BluntGuy wrote: »

M6, M7, M8... I support them all in their current format. M9, I'm half in support of (it's not being anti-Waterford), it's just my own opinion.

On the M8 the other day during rush-hour near Mitchelstown, the sheer amount of traffic made me realise why the road was necessary. Honestly, for a moment I thought it was busy enough to be D3M. It was certainly more traffic than the old N8 could've handled.

I just wish we had a motorway network rather than just motorways. I don't see the point in building miles of high-quality road and then not connecting them properly. Think M7/M9, think M7/M8, think M50/M1, think N8/N25... all atrociously connected.

And before anybody says why we need so many motorways compared to the UK. Compare and contrast. The UK has a very decent A-road network, we, by comparison do not.

If the majority of the national primary and national secondary routes were of at least a decent S2 or WS2 standard, perhaps I would be looking at this differently. As it stands, motorways are the safest, quickest way of transporting people from A to B. And let's not even bring the R and L routes into this *shudder*.

Also, just to put things in perspective, the AADT capacity of a good single-carriageway is roughly 9000 (not the rubbish we generally have here - I'm thinking of roads like the Moone bypass, Cahir bypass etc.). A D2M motorway is roughly 52,000 (98,000 for D3M). A 2+2 is roughly 20000 (maybe 25,000, I can't remember of the top of my head).

Bluntguy we would have had a complete Motorway network by now if the Interurban schemes had been rationalised. Instead we have a situation where duplicate Motorways cross the Leinster and Munster countryside all within short distances of each other(and not properly connected like or M7/M9 on the M7/M8 scheme not being able to go from M8 to the M7 Limerick direction without incurring a double toll).

With a rationalised network not as many towns would have been bypassed, but as national traffic was removed, either traffic would calm down, or if congestion still continued, a single carriageway bypass or 2+2 might be more appropriate?.

I mention all this with a public transport slant, all the cities have a public transport deficit, public transport just is not an option for most in this country(i acknowledge poor planning is part of this). there has been more spent on Roads then bus or Rail over the past decade but for the enormous sum spent are we getting value for money? i dont think so.

Amtmann

Hm. Anyone who thinks we don't need an M8 obviously doesn't drive the road on weekdays.

BluntGuy

Furet wrote: »

Hm. Anyone who thinks we don't need an M8 obviously doesn't drive the road on weekdays!

And that shot was taken nearer the time of opening. I know from driving the M8 on a regular basis that it's even busier than that.

The N8 really did need to be replaced.

Lennoxschips

Doesn't look very busy to me.

(by the way, looking at that photo, i'm not too impressed at how the road bends outwards to accomodate overpass columns)

Amtmann

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Doesn't look very busy to me.

Well, take all that traffic off the big broad motorway and put it back onto the old N8 and it will be both busy and dangerous. As BluntGuy says, it does get busier - a lot busier. We don't have many pictures of the M8 online to choose from.

Ideology doesn't really inform my view of road policy so much as safety does. And anyway, if the M8 were a lot busier, I'm sure that would displease you too.

(by the way, looking at that photo, i'm not too impressed at how the road bends outwards to accomodate overpass columns)

I agree with this.

BluntGuy

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Doesn't look very busy to me.

But as Furet said, try and shove all that traffic back onto an S2 with no hard shoulder and things aren't looking good.

...i'm not too impressed at how the road bends outwards to accomodate overpass columns.

Neither am I. I'm not sure why it was done this way, and I don't think this weird phenomenon occurs on the Fermoy bypass (which was obviously constructed using the same techniques).

The bend isn't quite hazardous enough to necesitate a slow down from 120 km/h though.

I'd be more concerned about the poor visibility at junctions and on bends. The stretch is bendy so it NEEDS reflectors on the concrete median. It also requires MOTORWAY STANDARD lighting at junctions. Junctions 11 and 12 are particularly bad for lighting.

Lennoxschips

Ideology doesn't really inform my view of road policy so much as safety does.

Just because parts of the old N8 were unsafe and old, that doesn't necessarily mean you need a full blown motorway.

There are plenty of countries that can build safe 2+1 roads (i.e. Sweden) for exactly this purpose. That's what you'd build if safety was your number one priority.

Building a motorway instead is very much an ideology influenced road policy.

Neither am I. I'm not sure why it was done this way, and I don't think this weird phenomenon occurs on the Fermoy bypass (which was obviously constructed using the same techniques).

I think the bit were you veer out for the column should have been started much further out and much more gradually. On the photo it looks quite sharp. And in that photo it's particularly bad as there's another bridge just further out, yet the road narrows back in again and veers out again at the next bridge, when it could have just stayed wider between the bridges.

Danno

The N8 needed to be replaced by the M8. The sooner it finishes right up to the M7 the better. Everyday the traffic on the N8 just seems to be increasing and increasing.

AugustusMaximus

It actually still amazes me at times that the gov actually got off their arses and did something correctly for once.

In the past they would have just done short bypasses for each town and left it at that.

With these interurbans, we have planned ahead for at least 30 years. I'm quite rightly staggered too by the sensible gov decision to redesignate all the HQDC sections to motorway. Amazing. Is this Ireland ?

The one drawback are the linking junctions. The M4/M6, M7/M8 and M7/M9 junctions should be freeflow in all movements.


I'm also glad that the interurbans were built following the old N roads. Due to this, it means that a great deal of towns, especially in the midlands have direct motorway access in and out of them. This potentially means more motorway usage and ultimately (hopefully) a localised reduction in road deaths.

G_R

what amazes me is that some poeple actually object to the M8 or any other of the MIU schemes.

have u been in abbeyleix, durrow, urlingford etc etc between 8-10am and 4-6pm any evening (except possibly sunday). These towns absolutley has to be bypassed and while no one (i think) is diputing that it would have been stupid to bypass with anything less than motorway because:

HQDC- stupid idea and should never have been considered in the first place - motorway without restrictions - joke - just a goldmine for corrupt politicians.

standard DC - will have to be upgraded sometime in the future (traffic levels will only grow)

standard single carriage way - same as for standard DC only worse

2+1 roads - these roads are stupid and should never be used (even if the majority of Irish drivers could drive on them properly)

and also the idea of going from main road, to bypass, to main road, to bypass would be a joke. full stop.

we need to have our main cities/towns connected to the capital by a decent road network if we want those areas to develop. One of the ways this has to be done is a high quality road.motorway network connecting all regions/areas of the country to each other as well as dublin.

I know people will prob start saying now "a jaysus with the recession we cant be affording them things" but if we want to be ready for the upturn when it comes (hopefully sooner rather than later) then we have to get essential infrustructure (ie. roads rail essential services etc) in place.

BluntGuy

Lennoxschips wrote: »

There are plenty of countries that can build safe 2+1 roads (i.e. Sweden) for exactly this purpose. That's what you'd build if safety was your number one priority.

I find Ireland's 2+1 roads awful. Maybe if they had some GSJs and a concrete step barrier I'd find them acceptable. Instead they have that horrible wire-barrier which "flicks" light in your face at regular intervals making it difficult to drive in the dark and slices motorcyclists to bits upon impact.

2+2 is the best compromise between S2 and a full-blown motorway. But I'm not a fan of 2+2 myself, as the land-take is nearly as high as a full-blown DC anyway.

Anyway, my primary rationale for building roads as motorway is the higher-speed limit and the additional safety offered by the restrictions. Capacity is very weird issue in this country. We have large stretches of "empty" (for lack of a better word) motorway. But I'm afraid that has to be the case. You can't build 5 miles of motorway, stop and then build another stretch 3 miles down the line. That's insanity. Motorways have to be continous, and if that means under-used stretches, that's unfortunately the price we have to pay.

And yes, I agree that motorways are not needed all over the place. But I certainly take no exception to the construction of the M1, M6, M7 and M8. M9, M20, M18, arguably not... but the others without a doubt are necessary IMO.

If we weren't to construct those key routes as M, we'd be kicking ourselves in a few years time for short-sightedness. At least now we KNOW that these roads will not need ANY major upgrades for a long time.

The only drawback, as AugustusMaximus states, is that the NRA haven't a clue how to link motorways together.