N8/N25/N40 - Dunkettle Interchange [under construction]

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

It does narrow. There will def be scope to widen it when the M8 is moved to the east.

Agreed the scope will be available but I think it probably won't be needed in reality. This isn't a desirable route for anyone other than a few residents of Ballinglanna or Woodville, so it's probably not going to get much use.

Of course they might start forcing people to use this sh1t-show at some point during the upgrade, but that's another story.

cantalach

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Agreed the scope will be available but I think it probably won't be needed in reality. This isn't a desirable route for anyone other than a few residents of Ballinglanna or Woodville, so it's probably not going to get much use.

Of course they might start forcing people to use this sh1t-show at some point during the upgrade, but that's another story.

Agreed that it is a very poor route for getting to Glounthane, Little Island, and other points east. But I think you’ll eventually have far more people cycling to/from places like Ballinglanna, Woodville, Marwood, etc. given that they are (or will be) more populous. For me, this new route would be more attractive than going through Glanmire village but maybe it depends on what type of cyclist you are.

hans aus dtschl

cantalach wrote: »

Agreed that it is a very poor route for getting to Glounthane, Little Island, and other points east. But I think you’ll eventually have far more people cycling to/from places like Ballinglanna, Woodville, Marwood, etc. given that they are (or will be) more populous. For me, this new route would be more attractive than going through Glanmire village but maybe it depends on what type of cyclist you are.

There's also a longer term plan to have a dedicated route through the village to Dunkettle Roundabout on the flat also.

Ballinglanna etc are all on the Northern side of the hill and might find that routing a bit easier. Woodville is right at the top though I think, so the new proposed Dunkettle routing likely be more attractive to them alright.

Everyone East of Dunkettle will find this routing convoluted and awkward though, and that's a big problem.

AugustusMinimus

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

There's also a longer term plan to have a dedicated route through the village to Dunkettle Roundabout on the flat also.

Ballinglanna etc are all on the Northern side of the hill and might find that routing a bit easier. Woodville is right at the top though I think, so the new proposed Dunkettle routing likely be more attractive to them alright.

Everyone East of Dunkettle will find this routing convoluted and awkward though, and that's a big problem.

It’s probably an additional minute of cycling. To go directly under the M8, another tunnel under the slip lane for M8 north would be required. The cycle lane could then share the tunnel under the M8 itself with the car slip lane to Glounthaune.

riddlinrussell

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

It’s probably an additional minute of cycling. To go directly under the M8, another tunnel under the slip lane for M8 north would be required. The cycle lane could then share the tunnel under the M8 itself with the car slip lane to Glounthaune.

I think the problem is that this work is the perfect opportunity to do exactly that and not have cyclists going round the houses, once this is done you will instead suddenly have a major project to add a direct cycling route in the future. It shows a distinct lack of forward thinking and ambition for cycling provision in Cork.

hans aus dtschl

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

It’s probably an additional minute of cycling. To go directly under the M8, another tunnel under the slip lane for M8 north would be required. The cycle lane could then share the tunnel under the M8 itself with the car slip lane to Glounthaune.

Ah no, to be fair, I'd say it'd be a few minutes extra for someone fast, but probably 5-10 minutes for someone slow. There's two extra roundabouts to be traversed, and a road crossing W-E. I think you're perhaps missing a detail that it's reasonably steep uphill. It's not very noticeable in a car, but there's a bit of climbing there.
I will certainly attempt to test both and get you that detail.

Totally correct on the rest of your point though.

hans aus dtschl

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I think the problem is that this work is the perfect opportunity to do exactly that and not have cyclists going round the houses, once this is done you will instead suddenly have a major project to add a direct cycling route in the future. It shows a distinct lack of forward thinking and ambition for cycling provision in Cork.

Being clear, the idea that this work would happen in the future sounds unrealistic to me. There's only one opportunity to get this one right IMO.

And there is no realistic prospect of a direct East-West routing south of the Dunkettle Interchange either. The idea that you'd build yet another bridge over the N25 for pedestrians and cyclists because you didn't allocate enough space on the previous two bridges would be ridiculous.

I absolutely realise that I'm harping on about this, but I struggle to comprehend that this opportunity is being missed for the sake of what would appear to be a fairly small amount of money.

If you don't believe that this is a bad routing, and if it's within your 5km radius, go down and walk or cycle the stretch of the L2998. And gaze across from the new roundabout and tell me roughly what you think the difference might be, between the two routings.

riddlinrussell

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Being clear, the idea that this work would happen in the future sounds unrealistic to me. There's only one opportunity to get this one right IMO.

And there is no realistic prospect of a direct East-West routing south of the Dunkettle Interchange either. The idea that you'd build yet another bridge over the N25 for pedestrians and cyclists because you didn't allocate enough space on the previous two bridges would be ridiculous.

I absolutely realise that I'm harping on about this, but I struggle to comprehend that this opportunity is being missed for the sake of what would appear to be a fairly small amount of money.

If you don't believe that this is a bad routing, and if it's within your 5km radius, go down and walk or cycle the stretch of the L2998. And gaze across from the new roundabout and tell me roughly what you think the difference might be, between the two routings.

Oh I'm in full agreement with you, I cant see it ever being fixed if its not done now, the expense for a cycleway would be too high, its going to result in a major barrier to travel, maybe if Cork looks like Utrecht in 50 years a major cycle project would be justified....

KrisW1001

Wouldn't a bridge be necessary regardless? Looking at the map again, there are two movements for cars: straight on to join N25 eastbound and a diverge to join with M8 Northbound. The current arrangement peels off the cyclists before northbound cars, so there is no conflict between bikes and cars.

If you want to allow cyclists to continue westbound, you will need a safe way for those cyclists to cross the path taken by westbound cars leaving the road and joining M8 northbound. That crossing cannot be at grade (for reasons I hope are obvious), which means an underbridge for cyclists is the next likeliest option, but is there enough space there to allow for the necessary height changes?

hans aus dtschl

KrisW1001 wrote: »

Wouldn't a bridge be necessary regardless? Looking at the map again, there are two movements for cars: straight on to join N25 eastbound and a diverge to join with M8 Northbound. The current arrangement peels off the cyclists before northbound cars, so there is no conflict between bikes and cars.

If you want to allow cyclists to continue westbound, you will need a safe way for those cyclists to cross the path taken by westbound cars leaving the road and joining M8 northbound. That crossing cannot be at grade (for reasons I hope are obvious), which means an underbridge for cyclists is the next likeliest option, but is there enough space there to allow for the necessary height changes?

You're absolutely right.
And that's what we're actually discussing: whatever about an underpass of that M8 Northbound slip, there will be no "second attempt" underpass of the M8 Northbound proper.
The original proposal was to provide a crossing at grade, but that was shot down by the NTA, (as you rightly say, "for obvious reasons") so an underbridge is exactly what I would suggest, yes.

In terms of whether there's enough height available, I cannot answer definitively - I am not an expert - but I believe from this drawing that there's about 10m available which would seem to be enough. I'll defer to anyone who can explain to me that I'm reading it wrongly:
https://www.corkcoco.ie/sites/default/files/2018-01/32107200-CYC-P8-003 Rev1 A1.pdf

KrisW1001

The slip is the bigger problem. Both the cycleway and slip are at the same elevation - if anything the cycleway is maybe a half metre higher, as that's the lie of the land.

The only way to safely allow cyclist to proceed west under the M8 is to go under the slip, and do a dogleg to line up with the westbound road after the sliproad has diverged.

(picture will disappear forever by December 2020)

The red line shows the route the cycleway would have to take, the pink lines mark the overbridges. The only problem with this cleverness is that the cycle lane, which is higher up than the road, has to go under that same road...

Pete_Cavan

I raised that issue with this cycle route alternative before. To get the cycle track under the slip, it would have to start to descend a good bit further back, requiring a retaining walls on both sides, and obviously then a bridge section over the cycle track. It would have been quite a lot of extra work.

hans aus dtschl

KrisW1001 wrote: »

The slip is the bigger problem. Both the cycleway and slip are at the same elevation - if anything the cycleway is maybe a half metre higher, as that's the lie of the land.

The only way to safely allow cyclist to proceed west under the M8 is to go under the slip, and do a dogleg to line up with the westbound road after the sliproad has diverged.

(picture will disappear forever by December 2020)

The red line shows the route the cycleway would have to take, the pink lines mark the overbridges. The only problem with this cleverness is that the cycle lane, which is higher up than the road, has to go under that same road...

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying: I consider the slip road to be a lesser problem purely because it's not in active use. When it does become used it'll be a minor traffic flow. I fully agree with your synopsis and your proposed design is literally what I'm saying should be done.

But if there's not enough width on the new underpass of the M8 proper, then all bets are off. Whatever chance there is of retrofitting that slip road, the underpass of the M8 proper is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity as I see it. The disruption would be too great.

Also, they actually had to build up that cycleway, believe it or not. Legacy ground level was approx. 2m ASL: it was the legacy Cork-Youghal road. They literally built the cycleway up higher to make the gradient up the hill less severe further on. So I believe there's no issues with relief at that point, rather the opposite: there's a perfect opportunity available. Suspect they'd have to support the slip with some kind of retaining infrastructure though.

hans aus dtschl

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I raised that issue with this cycle route alternative before. To get the cycle track under the slip, it would have to start to descend a good bit further back, requiring a retaining walls on both sides, and obviously then a bridge section over the cycle track. It would have been quite a lot of extra work.

Sorry you posted as I posted.
I think a retaining wall was required on the slip-road side only, Pete. The Northern side was already excavated. And obviously the bridge section, as you say.

Also, we're all describing the cycleway as "descending" here, but just to be totally clear, the slip road is ascending, the cycleway would be near constant level, probably a very slight descent. But it'd be descending significantly in comparison with the slip road, which is what we're all discussing.

Edit:
I realise not everyone has the local "history" of this one, but the new slip road consists of a large deposit of new material on the old road. It's "built up".
And for clarity, I absolutely don't think the cost is negligible, I just don't believe that the extra costs are a good justification for not doing the works on the basis that the overall project cost is so large.

Either way, the proposed route's a non-runner for most people. Nobody I know who cycles through here thinks it's viable.

Markcheese

The dunkettle is the biggest transport hub in cork ,
3 (soon to be ) motorways ,including the main city ring road , meeting up with the dual carraigeway into the city ,
But there's no public transport hub , the train line to East cork goes right under it , but you can't change mode or direction , if you were getting a coach from mitchelstown or fermoy, you can't change and head east , (or heaven forbid ,get to mahon point ) ,

hans aus dtschl

Markcheese wrote: »

The dunkettle is the biggest transport hub in cork ,
3 (soon to be ) motorways ,including the main city ring road , meeting up with the dual carraigeway into the city ,
But there's no public transport hub , the train line to East cork goes right under it , but you can't change mode or direction , if you were getting a coach from mitchelstown or fermoy, you can't change and head east , (or heaven forbid ,get to mahon point ) ,

Can't you afford a car?
We don't have enough money for one bridge box and two retaining walls for active transport users, because we need to spend the money on THIRTEEN bridges and SEVEN other retaining walls exclusively for motorists.

/Sarcasm

Sorry, I realise it's the lowest form of wit.

hans aus dtschl

Being serious again for a second.
As good as the upgrade will be for me in my car, it's going to be much worse for me on foot or by bike.

If your proposed transport infrastructure makes it more attractive for me to use my car and less attractive for me to use my bike, you've probably done it wrongly. Whatever hope you have of convincing people like me to keep cycling through that mess, you've less hope of converting others.

So I'm not saying "whatever the cost, we must facilitate bikes and pedestrians". But I am saying don't make things worse by providing a PFO route.

Chris_5339762

No newsletter today, wonder if they forgot to click SEND.

hans aus dtschl

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

No newsletter today, wonder if they forgot to click SEND.

To be fair Chris, they don't do them every week.
And also to be fair to them, the quality of the newsletter is reasonably high.

I can tell you there's no new visible changes this week anyway.

Chris_5339762

Oh I know, I drive through it twice daily and there has indeed been very little (visible) work this week, apart from deliveries of earth and stuff as shown in those youtube videos. I look forward to the weekly update and it always reminds me its Friday!

No Dunkettle bunnies seen recently, the grass is too long although they have been excavating the N25 bridge somewhat.

KrisW1001

@hans I think we're dancing around a general agreement. In an ideal world, I would like to see a westbound cycle route here, but providing it will be prohibitively expensive, mainly because of the elevations. (Perhaps if the cycle route had been planned to the right [South], and lower, of the motor route, things would be different). But, given the situation as planned, I think the best option at present is to provide sufficient width on the underpass to accommodate a future cycle route, and leave the expensive under/over- pass cycle route as a future project.


(Disclosure: for various reasons, I am not a cyclist, but I'm 100% in favour of cycle routes for those who are simply because as a car-user, every car trip that becomes a safe bike trip makes both our lives better)

AugustusMinimus

This isn’t just a cycling issue by the way. There’s no safe way for pedestrians to get to Little island and Glounthaune at the moment from the Lower Glanmire Road which is unacceptable.

I suspect that a separate cycle walking track will be done eventually between the Port if Cork area and little Island on the other side of the road when Port of Cork gets turned into a living space.

Cork Trucker

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

when Port of Cork gets turned into a living space.

November 17th will give an indication of when this might well be

cantalach

Cork Trucker wrote: »

November 17th will give an indication of when this might well be

What’s happing on that date?

Cork Trucker

cantalach wrote: »

What’s happing on that date?

Judgement on the M28 Steering Group application fo appeal the refusal for a judicial review

cantalach

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Judgement on the M28 Steering Group application fo appeal the refusal for a judicial review

Or sorry, I thought it was something directly related to Tivoli.

Right now though, perhaps more importantly than full relocation of the container operations to Ringaskiddy, is the need to move the LPG storage facility to Marino Point. Residential redevelopment at Tivoli cannot legally happen until then. There are EU regulations about development within a certain radius of oil and gas storage facilities. So I think Marino Point is the one to watch more so than the M28.

hans aus dtschl

KrisW1001 wrote: »

@hans I think we're dancing around a general agreement. In an ideal world, I would like to see a westbound cycle route here, but providing it will be prohibitively expensive, mainly because of the elevations. (Perhaps if the cycle route had been planned to the right [South], and lower, of the motor route, things would be different). But, given the situation as planned, I think the best option at present is to provide sufficient width on the underpass to accommodate a future cycle route, and leave the expensive under/over- pass cycle route as a future project.


(Disclosure: for various reasons, I am not a cyclist, but I'm 100% in favour of cycle routes for those who are simply because as a car-user, every car trip that becomes a safe bike trip makes both our lives better)

The thing is though KrisW1001, they're telling us that the money IS available now. They're telling us they want to spend €1,000,000 per DAY on sustainable transport and need help to identify projects!

I agree with you that the least-worst compromise would be to at least provide sufficient width on the underpass. This will not happen because there has been no acceptance of the issue.

hans aus dtschl

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

This isn’t just a cycling issue by the way. There’s no safe way for pedestrians to get to Little island and Glounthaune at the moment from the Lower Glanmire Road which is unacceptable.

I suspect that a separate cycle walking track will be done eventually between the Port if Cork area and little Island on the other side of the road when Port of Cork gets turned into a living space.

Yes, but two problems with this:
1: It's quite a way into the future.
2: It would connect Little Island with Tivoli, but the under-construction connection to Glounthaune consists of at least five unsignalised unmarked crossing points. AKA not fit for purpose.

KrisW1001

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

The thing is though KrisW1001, they're telling us that the money IS available now. They're telling us they want to spend €1,000,000 per DAY on sustainable transport and need help to identify projects!

I agree with you that the least-worst compromise would be to at least provide sufficient width on the underpass. This will not happen because there has been no acceptance of the issue.

I was thinking a bit about this since, and perhaps the solution for East/west access is elsewhere. This location is very cramped as it is. It may be better to cross the M8 slip-road more safely further to the East, then either run to the south of the motor road that runs under the M8, or take a different routing entirely, running south of N25, through Little Island, as there's there's more space there. It's not the optimal route for trips between Cork city and Dunkettle itself, but I'm willing to bet that Cork City to/from Little Island is a much bigger traffic flow.

Trying to bring the cycle-lane across the M8 onramp just before the M8 would create unacceptable gradients for cyclists, or force a dismount, down steps, along an underpass, and up steps again.

hans aus dtschl

KrisW1001 wrote: »

I was thinking a bit about this since, and perhaps the solution for East/west access is elsewhere. This location is very cramped as it is. It may be better to cross the M8 slip-road more safely further to the East, then either run to the south of the motor road that runs under the M8, or take a different routing entirely, running south of N25, through Little Island, as there's there's more space there. It's not the optimal route for trips between Cork city and Dunkettle itself, but I'm willing to bet that Cork City to/from Little Island is a much bigger traffic flow.

Trying to bring the cycle-lane across the M8 onramp just before the M8 would create unacceptable gradients for cyclists, or force a dismount, down steps, along an underpass, and up steps again.

This alternate Little Island routing is what AugustusMinimus has mentioned. Both of you are correct: there will be an attempt to provide a dedicated corridor South of the entire interchange.

But the two problems with that are that there's currently no proposed timeline, and that there's been an explicit statement by the NTA last year that they will not fund dedicated sustainable infrastructure on, or into Little Island. They're partially right, as the Council are ploughing all their efforts into a car-first strategy for Little Island. The second the NTA manage to tempt a few people out of vehicles, the Council will see it as an opportunity to cram more cars in. Why should it be the NTA's responsibility to try and resolve that.

I don't see the issue with providing retaining walls and an underpass of the new M8 slip road? It'll only become a problem when the effort needs to take place retrospectively, it seems like a simple case of money and time right now? It also seems like a relatively minor effort compared with the rest of the Dunkettle Interchange works.

To be perfectly honest about it, I suspect you've given it more thought than the people who designed and signed off on the project.