N Roads Reclassification

Danno

Why are the NRA reclassifying our N roads as R? Could they not maintain the N status or call them A class roads?

ipodrocker

this is partly to the motorway reclassification, in terms of the m8/n8 for example, once the m8 is complete the old n8 will be reclassified as an R road from what ive seen.

L1011

It transfers the responsibility for the roads to the local councils. Who by all accounts usually maintain high usage R roads better than the NRA maintains low-grade N roads.

AugustusMaximus

They are going with Regional road status, presumably because

1. They don't want to give people the impression that the old roads are of high quality which may lead people to use these roads over the motorway
2. They don't want two National routes following the same path.

It wouldn't make a shred of difference anyways if county councils would get off their behind and bring the speed limits on these roads back to 100kph. Thankfully Cork Co Co are doing this at the moment.

Amtmann

Yes, it's unfortunate that the old N8, for example, which in places is very wide and straight, with a broad hard shoulder, will be virtually empty for ever more. It's an awful waste of land. That's really all I have to say about it.

slimjimmc

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

They are going with Regional road status, presumably because

1. They don't want to give people the impression that the old roads are of high quality which may lead people to use these roads over the motorway
2. They don't want two National routes following the same path.

It wouldn't make a shred of difference anyways if county councils would get off their behind and bring the speed limits on these roads back to 100kph. Thankfully Cork Co Co are doing this at the moment.

3. The NRA are not responsible for the maintenance of R roads !! .

AugustusMaximus

Furet wrote: »

Yes, it's unfortunate that the old N8, for example, which in places is very wide and straight, with a broad hard shoulder, will be virtually empty for ever more. It's an awful waste of land. That's really all I have to say about it.

There's a lot of other regional roads which would be unaccesable without the old roads.

Amtmann

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

There's a lot of other regional roads which would be unaccesable without the old roads.

I know. I just mean that a lot of the former N roads (again, like the N8) are so wide and so empty after the motorways open that it just seems wasteful (in terms of land/food production/forest cover etc.) to have such a broad road empty.

AugustusMaximus

Furet wrote: »

I know. I just mean that a lot of the former N roads (again, like the N8) are so wide and so empty after the motorways open that it just seems wasteful (in terms of land/food production/forest cover etc.) to have such a broad road empty.

True I guess. I think the greatest annoyance though is having 80kph speed limits due to the laziness of various county councils.

Where motorways are tolled though they are still heavily used.

icdg

MYOB wrote: »

It transfers the responsibility for the roads to the local councils. Who by all accounts usually maintain high usage R roads better than the NRA maintains low-grade N roads.

I refer the honourable OP to the recent thread on this board regarding N-secondary roads for lots of examples where that is indeed the case. There are some regional roads now however, which are streching the definition of "regional" quite a bit (R445 anyone?) and are longer than many national roads (mind you, lenght doesn't really come into it, or the N32 and N82 wouldn't exist...)

Oddly, the default status for a bypassed national road was envisaged under the Roads Act 1993 to be local road (ie, "unclassified", well until recent times). That hasn't worked out in practice thankfully. And going back even further to the 1980s, N-roads were not reclassified when a motorway opened - they kept their status (made no difference at the time, there was no NRA back then), although, to be fair, only two very short motorways opened in the 1980s.

From a branding point of view (and money, in these dark days of The Recession) I would have reclassified the bypassed N-roads as national secondary routes. The signs would not have to have been be replaced, the new numbers could have been just patched on. Think we're too far down the, er, road to do that at this stage, and as said before, the NRA seem to have little or no interest in the maintenance of the national secondary network.

ardmacha

Yes, it's unfortunate that the old N8, for example, which in places is very wide and straight, with a broad hard shoulder, will be virtually empty for ever more.

Because the new roads have followed a new route, rather than subsuming the old one, this means that a decent diversion route is available if there is an accident etc

Lennoxschips

Furet wrote: »

Yes, it's unfortunate that the old N8, for example, which in places is very wide and straight, with a broad hard shoulder, will be virtually empty for ever more. It's an awful waste of land. That's really all I have to say about it.

Yep, a waste of land and money as well, as a lot of these stretches were upgraded only 15 or so years ago.

Lennoxschips

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

True I guess. I think the greatest annoyance though is having 80kph speed limits due to the laziness of various county councils.

Where motorways are tolled though they are still heavily used.

I fairness 80 km/hr is a suitable limit for almost all N-roads.

Just because there were 100 km/hr limits previously doesn't mean they were right to have been there.

AugustusMaximus

Lennoxschips wrote: »

I fairness 80 km/hr is a suitable limit for almost all N-roads.

Just because there were 100 km/hr limits previously doesn't mean they were right to have been there.

I can't agree. The R639 is straight and wide. No way does any of this road warrant an 80kph. And Cork Co Co agrees.

BluntGuy

I don't mind the old N-routes being downgraded to R-status (provided they keep their speed limits where necessary - not blanket 80 km/h limits which make little sense).

What I'm upset about (and I mentioned this on the Cullahill) forum is the lazyness when it comes to replacing signs. Look at the recently opened M8 Cashel-Mitchelstown. There are still signs saying "N8" all over the place, despite the fact that the road doesn't exist (well legislatively it does but on the ground it doesn't).

The worst example is on the N24 going towards Limerick. You get to a roundabout near Cahir and the sign says "(N8)". This would lead L-Drivers, Agricultural Vehicles, cyclists etc. that were unfamiliar with the area to believe that the N8 was perfectly acceptable for them to use. But if they follow the N24 road to the "N8" junction, all of a certain blue motorway signs are flashing in their face, and they realise that they're stuck...

What do you think happens then? 1 out of 10 of them will turn back and try to find an alternative route, the other 9 will just enter the motorway anyway...

Lennoxschips

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

I can't agree. The R639 is straight and wide. No way does any of this road warrant an 80kph. And Cork Co Co agrees.

I know that road, I've driven it many times. Such roads are 80 km/hr in Holland and 90 km/hr in France and Germany. It's a contributory reason to why those countries have lower road deaths than Ireland.

The argument was made that we "needed" motorways from a safety aspect, i.e., they were needed because you could drive fast on them safer. Now we have the motorways and we keep the single carriageway roads next to them at 100 km/hr. It doesn't make sense. Those roads have tractors and cyclists on them and are meant for local traffic. They should be 80 km/hr, full stop. I don't care how straight they are.

AugustusMaximus

Lennoxschips wrote: »

I know that road, I've driven it many times. Such roads are 80 km/hr in Holland and 90 km/hr in France and Germany. It's a contributory reason to why those countries have lower road deaths than Ireland.

The argument was made that we "needed" motorways from a safety aspect, i.e., they were needed because you could drive fast on them safer. Now we have the motorways and we keep the single carriageway roads next to them at 100 km/hr. It doesn't make sense. Those roads have tractors and cyclists on them and are meant for local traffic. They should be 80 km/hr, full stop. I don't care how straight they are.

I really don't know what to say. Seriously though, I think it is beyond belief to actually think 80kph is suitable for that road.

If you think that, then every single two lane road in Ireland should have a 80kph speed limit.

The R639 is of same or better quality than the single lane sections on the N25, N72, N20 etc etc.

Amtmann

Such roads are eminently suitable for 100km/h in Ireland as is - and will be even moreso when the M8 opens.

Just because they do things a certain way on the continent doesn't mean it's automatically sensible or better.

I suspect Holland has lower road deaths on such roads not because of its speed limit, but rather because the Dutch already have motorways - meaning that you don't get cars, busses, lorry convoys, tractors and combine harvesters on their single carriageway roads in great numbers, as you do on the current N8.

It's the sheer volume of the wildly varying types of traffic using the road simultaneously that makes the N8 and similar roads more dangerous than their Dutch equivalents at present, not the speed limit.

BluntGuy

There is no point having unnecessary 80 km/h speed limits put on roads that are WELL capable of 100 km/h. Simple as.

The R639 is a regional road, but it is a regional road of high quality in places and should not be subject a lower speed limit that is as safe now as it was before (if not safer).

AugustusMaximus

BluntGuy wrote: »

There is no point having unnecessary 80 km/h speed limits put on roads that are WELL capable of 100 km/h. Simple as.

The R639 is a regional road, but it is a regional road of high quality in places and should not be subject a lower speed limit that is as safe now as it was before (if not safer).

Yep. Lower traffic on the road makes it safer than before.

Lennoxschips

Like I said those roads would never have 100 km/hr limits in Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium or Germany. But what do they know huh... That's not to say there are no 100 km/hr two lane roads in those countries, they do have those. But only when all the junctions are grade separated (with the exception of the odd roundabout), and, crucially, there are no access roads for houses. Cyclists and tractors are also banned from such roads. I doubt there is a single such single carriageway road in Ireland.

Now that we have a parallel motorway for the fast traffic, we can give the N road over to the local traffic (which, like I said, includes bicycles and tractors, local access and many at grade junctions), and a suitable slower limit.

It's the sheer volume of the wildly varying types of traffic using the road simultaneously that makes the N8 and similar roads more dangerous than their Dutch equivalents at present, not the speed limit.

You'd be very wrong, there are two lane roads in Holland that are busier than the N8 ever was. The N9 from Alkmaar to Den Helder for example. There's a strictly enforced 80 km/hr limit there.

I find it intriguing that you can see that having various types of traffic using a road (bicycles, tractors and cars) is dangerous, but fail to see that lowering the limit would improve safety.

If you think that, then every single two lane road in Ireland should have a 80kph speed limit.

Only on two lane roads with at grade junctions and bicycle and tractor access, and with house access roads. And indeed, that would mean almost all two lane roads in the country, yes.

Slap 80 km/hr limits on these roads and infest them with speed cameras, and I guarantee you that you will see a substantial fall in road deaths. People will give out at first and will be phoning Joe Duffy, but, like the smoking ban, when they see the tangiable benefits, public opinion will change.

Amtmann

Lennoxschips wrote: »

You'd be very wrong, there are two lane roads in Holland that are busier than the N8 ever was. The N9 from Alkmaar to Den Helder for example. There's a strictly enforced 80 km/hr limit there.

Right. Because it's so busy (busier than the N8 ever was), it has an 80km/h limit. Fine in my book.

I find it intriguing that you can see that having various types of traffic using a road (bicycles, tractors and cars) is dangerous, but fail to see that lowering the limit would improve safety.

It isn't very intriguing at all, and you really shouldn't be so smug.

It's not that I 'fail' to see things correctly; rather, I emphasize different factors. I emphasize the geography of a specific road and, bearing that in mind, take into account its daily traffic volume. In other words, I try to see a particular road in its proper context. You don't: you prefer blanket rules which ignore the context and specificities of a particular road. The N8 has had a 100 km/h limit for years with a daily traffic volume of between twelve and 16,000 vehicles. When superceded by the M8, obvious things will happen - but the road won't be any narrower. It will probably carry 90% less traffic and will still be one of the widest, straightest roads in the country. It would be stupid to decrease the speed limit of its wider areas after driving conditions have improved, not disimproved.

BluntGuy

Furet wrote: »

It would be stupid to decrease the speed limit of its wider areas after driving conditions have improved, not disimproved.

Absolutely.

And I'm glad you just mentioned the "wider areas" because I have to make this clear. I have no problem with lowering the speed limit to 80, even 60, on redesignated national routes that were only given 100 km/h limits by virtue of their status, despite the fact they weren' even close to 100 km/h standard.

But I do have a problem with making traffic go slower on roads designed for 100 km/h. Yes, they are local roads. But there is no reason to slow down local traffic just because there is a faster route nearby.

If people want the 120 km/h limit, it's available for them on the motorway. It doesn't necessarily mean that everybody else should be stuck at 80 km/h.

What outstounds me though, is how loosely the 100 km/h limit is applied. It is just shoved onto any old road:

For example:

The N8 Cashel Bypass had a 100 km/h limit and it was a nice, standard dual-carriageway.

The N8 Cahir Bypass (old one - now R639 ) has a 100 km/h and it's nice, straight WS2.

The N72 from Mallow to Mitchelstown has a 100 km/h and it's an awful twisting S2 road with no hard-shoulder (not even a hard-strip most of the time), potholes galore, numerous death-trap bends, and it's narrow everywhere.

THAT is the type of road that needs a 80 km/h limit, even 60 km/h in many places.

The R639, for a large part, isn't.

Lennoxschips

What exactly are the advantages of a 100 km/hr limit on the old N8? Anybody who wants to travel fast can (and will) use the M8, which is right next to it.

The safety benefits of an 80 km/hr limit would far outweigh the advantages (none) of a 100 km/hr limit. There's nothing more dangerous on roads like the N8 than taking a right turn and waiting for oncoming traffic to pass. You are standing still and have cars passing you out at 100 km/hr to the left of you and cars coming against you at 100 km/hr on your right. It's a very dangerous situation and is the reason why such roads in other countries don't have 100 km/hr limits. It doesn't matter how straight the road is, junctions like that just don't mix with 100 km/hr limits.

It's gombeen politics ahead of common sense as usual. In other countries these kinds of mixed use roads with at grade intersections and residential access would never be 100 km/hr. Yet in Ireland the penny hasn't dropped, mainly because we don't have road engineers in charge of our roads.

Lennoxschips

Furet wrote: »

Right. Because it's so busy (busier than the N8 ever was), it has an 80km/h limit. Fine in my book.

No, that particular road in Holland has an 80 km/hr limit not because of its traffic volume (17,000 pae), but because the design spec for a 100 km/hr single carriageway road in the Netherlands is significantly more demanding than in Ireland.

L1011

Lennoxschips wrote: »

It's gombeen politics ahead of common sense as usual. In other countries these kinds of mixed use roads with at grade intersections and residential access would never be 100 km/hr.

We're joined on to one where they are. Well, 98km/h.

Lennoxschips

These kinds of junctions are what I'm talking about

It's the N8, it's a 100 km/hr limit, it's dangerous. There isn't even a physical traffic island in place.

Amtmann

You know, it's possible to drown in as little as two inches of water.

Roads are dangerous in general. Everyone knows this. And indeed, there should be an 80km/h limit in the area shown in your picture. But to apply a blanket 80km/h limit would not a good idea. Quite the opposite. As I've said, the road will be more than 90% less trafficked when the M8 opens. This means the road will be far, far quieter, meaning that even more space and room for manouevre will be available to cars using it, as well as much greater visibility.
You speak of right-turns on the existing N8, and say these are very dangerous. And I fully agree with you - they are dangerous. But I disagree when you say they're dangerous because of the 100km/h traffic coming at you from both sides; or, at least I'd offer a big qualification: They're dangerous because of the volume of 100km/h traffic coming at you from both sides. When the M8 opens, that volume - which is crucial to any discussion on danger with regard to these particularly broad, straight former N roads - will be gone.

I regularly had to make a right turn onto the then N8 close to Kilcoran - a perfect example because Kilcoran is one area where the then N8 was really wide, really straight, but also really busy. And you're right; making a right turn then was dangerous. But it's not anymore, because it's now the R639 and is deserted. And because it's deserted, it's safer - for many reasons. I just don't think these blanket 80km/h limits of yours are workable, practical, or - most importantly - necessary. Do please note that I'm referring to stretches of the R639/N8 that are 1) broad and 2) straight. These two criteria do matter.

I would be in favour, however, of placing an 80 (or 60) km/h limit on areas of that road which are neither broad nor straight, such as the few kilometres south of New Inn.

Again, that's really all I have to say on the matter. I've said my piece and you've said yours. I won't be dwelling on this point any longer.

Lennoxschips

I don't agree that you should have a high limit just because the road is less busy. Either it's up to the speed by design or it isn't. And by the design spec of most western European countries - all of which have a better safety record than Ireland - it's not up to that speed in its current condition. Even on a less busy road, you could still be doing a right turn and get caught up in a head on collision. Or a car pulling out of a residential access driveway could misjudge a distance. If the road isn't up to scratch then it isn't up to scratch.

But the DOT, the NRA, Fianna Fail, county councils, the whole lot of them, none have ever looked to the successes and failures of road and transport policy in other nations. Maybe it will take another 10 years before somebody in the government realises that Sweden has some of the safest roads in Europe because they actually went and did something about it instead of just spending their time blaming bad drivers and running gory ads on the television.

It would be interesting to have an 100 km/hr limit on the old N8 for two years, and then have a heavily enforced 80 km/hr limit for two years, and then compare the crash data. People will be surprised.

Danno

Lennoxschips wrote: »

What exactly are the advantages of a 100 km/hr limit on the old N8? Anybody who wants to travel fast can (and will) use the M8, which is right next to it.

The N8 will be over 7 miles from where I live and it will be tolled. I will continue to drive at around 100kmph* on the "R635" and if anybody zaps me I'll shove his speed gun where the sun don't shine.

*under safe conditions.

ardmacha

All non urban roads in the UK have a 60mph speed limit unless posted otherwise. Yet the UK has a much lower accident rate then here, so the accident rate issue is down to multiple factors.

AugustusMaximus

ardmacha wrote: »

All non urban roads in the UK have a 60mph speed limit unless posted otherwise. Yet the UK has a much lower accident rate then here, so the accident rate issue is down to multiple factors.

And the UK accident rate isn't that much greater than the Netherlands where the previous poster has stated there being 80kph on that class of roads.

BluntGuy

Somebody mentioned tolled bypasses... now that is a different issue.

If the motorway option is tolled, and the alternative route is straight WS2, then shoving a 80 km/h speed limit could be seen as pandering to the toll operators to try and increase the volume of traffic using the motorway. Just a thought...