Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Motorway redesignation Phase #2 released

Options
1…5681011…14

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    *Sigh*

    They really are trying everything to oppose this.


    The stretch is being upgraded for safety reasons. Do these councillors really think it's safe to have tractors/cyclicts/pedestrians on these DCs?

    It's a helluva lot safer on the Dual carriageway section than the section between Barndarrig and the Beehive.

    There's private accesses on the south end of the Rathnew bypass, no way to prevent pedestrians, tractors or cyclists from getting out of their homes.

    Gombeenism by O'Shaughnessy though.


  • Options
    #213
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    It's a helluva lot safer on the Dual carriageway section than the section between Barndarrig and the Beehive.

    I disagree... with traffic zooming by at 120 km/h (or even 100 km/h), what place is there for a cyclist or tractor on such a road?

    Yes, DCs are safer than the useless, windy S2 that makes up much of our network. But DCs are only safer when proper restrictions are in force. If high-speed DCs are allowed to retain the same restrictions as the old roads they are replacing, their safety effect is negated and the road may even become more dangerous as a result.

    Far safer to have a tractor trundling along at 40 km/h in 80 or 60 km/h traffic than have it troddling about on a road specifically designed for 120 km/h travel (though their design does enable safe 160 km/h travel - but that's a whole other debate).

    And I don't care if they use the hard shoulder. The hard shoulder isn't a "convenience lane", it isn't designed to allow slow-moving traffic. It is an emergency lane, end of story.


  • Options
    #214
    ipodrocker
    Registered Users Posts: 1,002 ✭✭✭ipodrocker


    does that mean watergrasshill to glanmire is still the n8 but with higher speed limit or has the m8 been extended?


  • Options
    #215
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,964 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Still the N8 for now, although it's quite likely that it will be redesignated the M8 when the second round of motorway orders take effect.


  • Options
    #216
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    ipodrocker wrote: »
    does that mean watergrasshill to glanmire is still the n8 but with higher speed limit or has the m8 been extended?

    Yes, the Watergrasshill-Glanmire stretch is still N8, so don't freak out if you see a tractor. :D

    I have e-mailed the NRA with plenty of questions, and one of them is when the motorway redesignation is expected to come through. I will post the answer I get from them soon.

    I expect the stretch to be redesignated in the middle of next year.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Well, the answer I got from them on when this is expected to be done was not concrete, they just said it was being handled by the minister.


  • Options
    #218
    marmurr1916
    Registered Users Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭marmurr1916


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Well, the answer I got from them on when this is expected to be done was not concrete, they just said it was being handled by the minister.

    It'll depend on whether or not there are objections. The more objections the longer the delay.

    It looks like the Dunkettle-Glanmire section will have a 100km/h speed limit even if it does get redesignated to motorway.


  • Options
    #219
    E92
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,147 ✭✭✭E92


    marmurr1916 wrote: »
    It looks like the Dunkettle-Glanmire section will have a 100km/h speed limit even if it does get redesignated to motorway.

    The same was said of the Cashel bypass, and it got a 120 km/h limit.

    Dunkettle - Glanmire is definitely a better standard of road than the Cashel bypass, so I would see no reason why it shouldn't get anything less than 120 km/h.

    I know some people think 120 is too high, but as the anti speeding people keep reminding us, it's a limit and not a target.


  • Options
    #220
    ipodrocker
    Registered Users Posts: 1,002 ✭✭✭ipodrocker


    what do people think of the exit for glanmire going northbound , its a sharp turn, cant see them letting it stay open if the road upgrades to motorway status, and the at grade junction which follows only has slip on northbound slip off southbound. I wonder why that junction wasnt made a proper full at grade junction would make more sense to have slips for north and sound bound.


  • Options
    #221
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    ipodrocker wrote: »
    what do people think of the exit for glanmire going northbound , its a sharp turn, cant see them letting it stay open if the road upgrades to motorway status, and the at grade junction which follows only has slip on northbound slip off southbound. I wonder why that junction wasnt made a proper full at grade junction would make more sense to have slips for north and sound bound.

    Yes, a very sharp turn, with almost no warning, and a very short separation lane. In my opinion the northbound carriageway is more inappropriate for 120km/h than the southbound on this particular section because, in addition to that Glanmire turn-off, there is also a fairly steep descent coupled with a sharpish turn. I have done 120km/h there once (I admit it) and felt I was going a little too fast for the conditions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Zoney
    Registered Users Posts: 1,639 ✭✭✭Zoney


    E92 wrote: »
    The same was said of the Cashel bypass, and it got a 120 km/h limit.

    Dunkettle - Glanmire is definitely a better standard of road than the Cashel bypass, so I would see no reason why it shouldn't get anything less than 120 km/h.

    I know some people think 120 is too high, but as the anti speeding people keep reminding us, it's a limit and not a target.

    It would be less of a problem if it weren't for the fact that many people see a 120 km/h limit as "ah sure 140 km/h isn't even really speeding".

    Besides, shouldn't any 120 km/h limit road have road conditions suitable for higher speeds? New motorways are 160 km/h specced, and surely a road should just about cope with 140 km/h speeds if there is a 120 km/h limit.

    If a road seems a bit unsafe driving at 120 km/h, then a limit of just that seems a bad idea considering the need for some boundary between the speed limit and road capability.


  • Options
    #223
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Okay, I've an update on the state of play.

    People had until 14 November to object to any one, or all, of the current redesignation candidates.
    Some did.

    The NRA responded on a case by case basis.

    The objectors now have until 19 December to plead their case again.
    After the 19th, Department of Transport officials will compile a report for the minister and present it to him during the first half of January. He will then make his decision on a case by case basis, so some redesignations might proceed while others do not. It's not all or nothing.

    The Department would hope that, subject to ministerial approval, the actual changeover (blue signs, etc.) will take place some time in March.


  • Options
    #224
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    Furet wrote: »
    Okay, I've an update on the state of play.

    People had until 14 November to object to any one, or all, of the current redesignation candidates.
    Some did.

    The NRA responded on a case by case basis.

    The objectors now have until 19 December to plead their case again.
    After the 19th, Department of Transport officials will compile a report for the minister and present it to him during the first half of January. He will then make his decision on a case by case basis, so some redesignations might proceed while others do not. It's not all or nothing.

    The Department would hope that, subject to ministerial approval, the actual changeover (blue signs, etc.) will take place some time in March.

    Do you know what the situation is for those stretches that don't get through first time, the southern half of the M9 for instance?

    Because, apparently the southern M9 is now redesignated along with the rest of the first tranche (according to posters on boards/sabre) but there was no public announcement of this.


  • Options
    #225
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    I couldn't get any specifics.


  • Options
    #226
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Furet wrote: »
    Okay, I've an update on the state of play.

    People had until 14 November to object to any one, or all, of the current redesignation candidates.
    Some did.

    The NRA responded on a case by case basis.

    The objectors now have until 19 December to plead their case again.
    After the 19th, Department of Transport officials will compile a report for the minister and present it to him during the first half of January. He will then make his decision on a case by case basis, so some redesignations might proceed while others do not. It's not all or nothing.

    The Department would hope that, subject to ministerial approval, the actual changeover (blue signs, etc.) will take place some time in March.

    Overall, that was an encouraging update. Hopefully the minister will have the sense to overlook the petty objections to stretches which by all account need restrictions (not necessarily the 120 km/h limit) in order to keep inappropiate traffic off or (in many cases) stop stupid development from taking place.

    In response to the M9, there is nothing officially stating that southern 64 km stretch has been redesignated. However according to the NRA, the issue (that impeded its redesignation) has been "resolved", so I presume that means redesignation has taken place.


  • Options
    #227
    fricatus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,081 ✭✭✭fricatus


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    In response to the M9, there is nothing officially stating that southern 64 km stretch has been redesignated. However according to the NRA, the issue (that impeded its redesignation) has been "resolved", so I presume that means redesignation has taken place.

    (Adopts Lord Riddley-Gout accent) Why, how very Irish!!!

    Good to hear though. I only wish they'd include the Waterford bypass in this. I really fear it will be a free-for all otherwise.


  • Options
    #228
    icdg
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 11,587 Mod ✭✭✭✭icdg


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Overall, that was an encouraging update. Hopefully the minister will have the sense to overlook the petty objections to stretches which by all account need restrictions (not necessarily the 120 km/h limit) in order to keep inappropiate traffic off or (in many cases) stop stupid development from taking place.

    In response to the M9, there is nothing officially stating that southern 64 km stretch has been redesignated. However according to the NRA, the issue (that impeded its redesignation) has been "resolved", so I presume that means redesignation has taken place.

    No SI to that effect on irishstatutebook.ie . However it sometimes takes a while for them to appear there after they're promulgated. But there's nothing that I can find on the (more quickly updated) Iris Offiguil website to say that another SI has been enacted, so unless I've missed something the southern half of the N9 has yet to be reclassified officialy.


  • Options
    #229
    Chris_533976
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Chris_533976


    They've said that the issue has been resolved (the need for some M10 maybe, or perhaps an escape for alternative route traffic). They've said nothing about reclassifying it yet.


  • Options
    #230
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Chris_533976 wrote: »
    They've said that the issue has been resolved (the need for some M10 maybe, or perhaps an escape for alternative route traffic). They've said nothing about reclassifying it yet.

    They said it had been "resolved", but they also said that there was to be no third tranche of redesignations, at least not in the short-term.

    So that means two things:

    (a) The stretch was redesignated, but there is nothing official stating it.

    (b) The stretch remains standard N road and may possibly redesignated in a few years time. In which case the issue was "resolved" simply by not redesignating it. :mad:


  • Options
    #231
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Here was the original M9 proposal anyway...

    http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/10978-3.pdf

    If the issue with junctions 5 - 12 was "resolved", surely common sense dicates that the stretch has been redesignated.

    ***

    When these roads (hopefully) go blue in March/April (I predict June I'm afraid), then will signs like this be changed to say "M-"...

    http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/displayimage.php?album=268&pos=84

    Something tells me not. They didn't do it for the last round of redesignations, so I doubt they'll do it now. It's annoying because it's going to lead to further confusion. It's also annoying because in 2010, we will have 4 brand new high-spec motorway inter-urbans complimented by some of the most inconsistent road signage in Europe.

    It's an issue we really need to start caring about because I've seen it said in numerous tourist reviews that people found the road signage to be confusing (in addition to finding the roads dreadful).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Final update:

    December 19th was the closing date for the second round of submissions.

    They did it a hell of a lot quicker than last time round, giving whingers less time to make complaints.

    Last time, June 20th was the closing date for the second round of submissions. The S.I came into effect on July 17th with the actual redesignation taking place on September 24th.

    If the timeline was to be exactly the same for this scheme then:

    Closing Date: December 19th
    S.I: January 16th
    Redesignation: March 20th

    Anyway I can't wait for picture 1 (see below) to turn into picture 2... :cool:


  • Options
    #233
    ipodrocker
    Registered Users Posts: 1,002 ✭✭✭ipodrocker


    Bluntguy, i see you got out the photoshop skills very good and i agree sooner the better!


  • Options
    #234
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    ipodrocker wrote: »
    Bluntguy, i see you got out the photoshop skills very good and i agree sooner the better!

    I thought people might appreciate that. :D

    Obviously there's not really much in the way of pictures to show for this whole process, so that's all I could really do.

    There is of course one problem I thought people would notice with the second picture...


  • Options
    #235
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    BluntGuy wrote: »

    There is of course one problem I thought people would notice with the second picture...


    We did! just not pedantic enough too polite to comment :D


  • Options
    #236
    AugustusMaximus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,044 ✭✭✭AugustusMaximus


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I thought people might appreciate that. :D

    Obviously there's not really much in the way of pictures to show for this whole process, so that's all I could really do.

    There is of course one problem I thought people would notice with the second picture...

    No Euroroute sign.


  • Options
    #237
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    AugustusMaximus wrote: »
    No Euroroute sign.

    Perhaps this might help you out a bit...


  • Options
    #238
    Chris_533976
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Chris_533976


    SOmeone PS a tractor in there :D


  • Options
    #239
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Perhaps this might help you out a bit...


    I was looking at the N as well. ;)


  • Options
    #240
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I was looking at the N as well. ;)

    Hey, I'm not perfect! :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Skyhater
    Closed Accounts Posts: 311 ✭✭Skyhater


    Solid Yellow line..... was going to mention it, but didn't want to win this weeks "pedantic pat" award :)


Advertisement