Jack Lynch tunnel cycling?

enas

Was just reading the Wikipedia entry on the Jack Lynch Tunnel, where I read this mysterious paragraph:

Pedestrians and cyclists are expressly forbidden from using the tunnel.[citation needed] The exclusion of cyclists has been somewhat controversial as the feeder road is a dual-carriageway and so is open to cyclists, but the bye-law is applied because of space limitations and the obvious danger of cyclists in an enclosed tunnel.[citation needed]

As you can see, it's full of [citation needed]. Does anybody have more information on those controversies? What alternatives could there have been? I was just surprised to read this as I always found the fact that you can't cross the river after the city centre by bike quite frustrating to say the least.

thebouldwhacker

I wouldn't cycle in that tunnel for all the carbon in the world. The dual carriageways are bad enough not to mind being indoors with those nutters. It can be risky in a car not to mind on a bike... no I am happy to cycle into town or on the ferry, much better option with the cycle track taking you almost into the city centre....

Here is my argument in illustrated form, note how life turns to death on entering the tunnel.......

enas

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

much better option with the cycle track taking you almost into the city centre....

Which cycle track are you mentioning?

Anyway my point wasn't that it should be allowed to cycle in the tunnel to be sure! In fact I wasn't making any point, I was interested in learning more about those "controversies". In particular, what points were they making.

Lemag

Why bother going all the way in to town ?..

pokerface_me

Dangerous drivers in there at the best of times. You are asking for trouble if decide you would like to cycle through it, probably get a smack of a car for your troubles, some might say you deserved a smack of something.

thebouldwhacker

This be it, well the route above is from the Swansea ferry but from Passage as far as the GAA grounds is all cycle/pedestrian track. Its the old railway, perfect black top with no cars.

el Bastardo

@Bouldy: You might get arse-shaped wheels if you think that's a full cycle path.

For some reason I've only ever seen steering-wheel-chewers in the tunnel. Given that, I'd rather avoid, whatever ze rules.

enas

Guys, where did I say I'd like to cycle in the tunnel? That's certainly far down on the bottom of the list of things I'd like to do before I die. I already clarified it in my second post. (However, but that's unrelated with my first post, I do regret there isn't any way to cross the river in the area, without doing a long detour - talk about not providing direct routes to cyclists!)

My question was about those "controversies" the wikipedia article mentions. It doesn't cite any sources, and I didn't find anything after a quick Google. So I was wondering if any of you was in Cork at the time and remembers any of that. Thanks.

Dubba

I've no info on the tunnel and cycling but re. crossing the river - there's a car-ferry crossing in Glenbrook (see map above) that only charges €1 for cyclists. And it flat and well surfaced roads between Douglas and Monkstown so should'nt be to much of a detour.

gbee

I don't think you'll find any controversies today. That would have been fifteen years or more ago when the tunnel got it's go ahead and the final decision on precisely what was to be put in place.

There were a few options including a pedestrian and cycle bore, but as the adjoining roads were classes as 'motorways' they would then have to build a cycle and pedestrian off ram or tunnel under the road.

They settled on the current three bores with vehicular traffic only.

I did not know the Cross River Ferry charged for bicycles.

hans aus dtschl

If the tunnel interchange traffic doesn't get you, the tunnel traffic itself would. I wouldn't want to cycle through it.

The passage east car ferry is the way to go, if you must cross further east. Shame the maintenance bore couldn't have been a pedestrian bore...

adodsk

you think it's bad now.... just wait until they really screw it up for cyclists.

Dunkettle Interchange proposals

Doctor Bob

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

The passage east car ferry is the way to go, if you must cross further east.

Via Waterford/Wexford? Now that's a detour! :eek:

(I presume you mean Passage West. )

hans aus dtschl

I do mean Passage West, yes. Typing without thinking today.

Cookie_Monster

Is there actually proper legal provision to ban cyclists from any non motorway road? I would not have thought it'd be allowed under the RTAs

hans aus dtschl

It's too dangerous for cyclists in the tunnel: the jet fans are very powerful and there's all sorts of automatic responses to slow moving vehicles.

hans aus dtschl

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Is there actually proper legal provision to ban cyclists from any non motorway road? I would not have thought it'd be allowed under the RTAs

I had heard that the tunnel was in fact private, owned and maintained by council. How true that is, I don't know.

cycletheroad

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I had heard that the tunnel was in fact private, owned and maintained by council. How true that is, I don't know.

I'd say their would have been a toll if it was private for definite.

The new dual carriage way in waterford to the new bridge has signs reading no pedestrians ,animals or cyclists. I rang the NRA and asked when those by laws were passed and their were none in place and they went on to say that they would remove the signs but still up. The old way through kilmeaden is a risk ever since they put in the high footpaths. No thoughts for cyclists there.

Muckers

I cycled the tunnel about 2 months ago while cycling from Waterford to Carrigaline. Won't be doing it again that's for sure. Absolutely terrifying although it only lasted about a minute. Totally stupid thing to do, and I only found out later that the ferry would have not only made my journey safer but also considerably shorter as well.

enas

Thanks gbee for those details, that was the kind of information I was looking for in my initial post.

Regarding the ferry, for longer spins (say, going to Midleton), yes that's definitely the way to go, I don't argue that (plus it's funny). The need for a crossing point at the level of the tunnel is more for utility/short distance cycling. Take the area covering Glanmire/Little Island/Mahon/Rochestown. The tunnel and the Dunkettle interchange is pretty much at the centre of it. This makes journeys in this area (which I frequently have to do) de facto car dependent, although the distances are small.

Muckers wrote: »

I cycled the tunnel about 2 months ago while cycling from Waterford to Carrigaline. Won't be doing it again that's for sure. Absolutely terrifying although it only lasted about a minute.

How did it compare with that?

thebouldwhacker

gbee wrote: »

I don't think you'll find any controversies today. That would have been fifteen years or more ago when the tunnel got it's go ahead and the final decision on precisely what was to be put in place.

There were a few options including a pedestrian and cycle bore, but as the adjoining roads were classes as 'motorways' they would then have to build a cycle and pedestrian off ram or tunnel under the road.

They settled on the current three bores with vehicular traffic only.

I did not know the Cross River Ferry charged for bicycles.

Your spot on there, when it was being built it was touted as an access for all, I remember people were angry with the car only decision, as for the charge for bikes on the ferry ever take the one from clare to kerry a complete rip off.


@Muckers: :eek:

@cycletheroad: Fair play, I'll be on that road on my next spin, never cycled it due to the sign though I knew it made no sense.... the power of signage eh

langdang

You could try claiming "discrimination", that cycling through tunnels is "part of your culture" and that you're "entitled" and "have rights" but I don't think it would work.

Dat's Limerick City Tunnel

gbee

langdang wrote: »

You could try claiming "discrimination", that cycling through tunnels is "part of your culture" and that you're "entitled" and "have rights" but I don't think it would work.

Dat's Limerick City Tunnel

On the subject of signs there used by similar signs for the link road leading to the tunnel and repeated again close to the tunnel. I've either got so used to seeing it that I don't see it any more or it's moved.

cycletheroad

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Your spot on there, when it was being built it was touted as an access for all, I remember people were angry with the car only decision, as for the charge for bikes on the ferry ever take the one from clare to kerry a complete rip off.


@Muckers: :eek:

@cycletheroad: Fair play, I'll be on that road on my next spin, never cycled it due to the sign though I knew it made no sense.... the power of signage eh

Yep thats the story there . Signs were meant to be changed but I don't think they have. The old main road Is deadly all the way into the holy cross. No hard shoulder at all as you know. Much safer to use the new road.

Dubba

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Your spot on there, when it was being built it was touted as an access for all, I remember people were angry with the car only decision, as for the charge for bikes on the ferry ever take the one from clare to kerry a complete rip off.


@Muckers: :eek:

@cycletheroad: Fair play, I'll be on that road on my next spin, never cycled it due to the sign though I knew it made no sense.... the power of signage eh

There is no bike charge for the Passage West ferry, its a pedestrian charge AFAIK. Also its only a 5min crossing tops.

gbee

Dubba wrote: »

There is no bike charge for the Passage West ferry, its a pedestrian charge AFAIK. Also its only a 5min crossing tops.

Pedestrians used be free. Cyclists were classed as pedestrians, and still are. But Pedestrians are no longer free. :pac:

http://www.passagewestmonkstown.ie/cross-river-ferry.asp

enas

gbee wrote: »

Pedestrians used be free. Cyclists were classed as pedestrians, and still are. But Pedestrians are no longer free. :pac:

http://www.passagewestmonkstown.ie/cross-river-ferry.asp

As far as I know, in my limited experience (the last 5 years), pedestrians/cyclists have always had a fare of €1. Except they were never actually charged, till "recently" (around two years ago if I remember correctly).

gbee

enas wrote: »

As far as I know, in my limited experience .

Last time I used this ferry I was 'let off' with the car fare, €1.50 for a Transit Van.

So, your actual knowledge is more up to date than mine.

hans aus dtschl

Saw someone cycling Northbound through the Jack Lynch tunnel a few nights ago with what looked like a shopping bag swinging off the handlebars.

I was sorely tempted to slow down and drive the full stretch with hazard lights on behind him, but in the end I just put the hazards on and overtook. Wouldn't go through there in a fit.

monument

There is no specific provision which allows the the banning of cyclists from non-motorway tunnels. The latest traffic sign manual has a 'no bicycle' sign but at the moment this has no legal back whatsoever and can be ignored as much as shared use, or whatever you're having your self.

So, no cycling is not banned in the Jack Lynch Tunnel. Anybody who claims otherwise is lying or does not know what they are talking about. But in saying that, you'd want to be mad to cycle in it.

On non-motorway roads the road authority has a legal responsibly to make provisional for all users and in the case of recent large scale non-motorway tunnels this clearly was not done. At very little extra cost at the time of construction cyclists could have been provided for.

I'm not a lawyer and this post is not legal advice.

gbee

monument wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer and this post is not legal advice.

The Traffic Division do enforce the illegal traffic ~ cyclists, pedestrians, tractors, horses and a few more like JCBs ~ though it may seem like they don't as one could get away with it for a while, they do issue warnings and prosecutions and force people to turn around and go back [before entering the tunnel if stopped in time].

One or two complaints form Joe Public and it gets acted upon ~ offenders tend to repeat and be habitual.

monument

gbee wrote: »

The Traffic Division do enforce the illegal traffic ~ cyclists, pedestrians, tractors, horses and a few more like JCBs ~ though it may seem like they don't as one could get away with it for a while, they do issue warnings and prosecutions and force people to turn around and go back [before entering the tunnel if stopped in time].

One or two complaints form Joe Public and it gets acted upon ~ offenders tend to repeat and be habitual.

I'd love to know what they are enforcing and how, because currently walking or cycling in the tunnel is not "illegal activity."

If such is illegal could you please point me to the act or SI which says so?

gbee

monument wrote: »

I'd love to know what they are enforcing and how, because currently walking or cycling in the tunnel is not "illegal activity."

If such is illegal could you please point me to the act or SI which says so?

There may be a loophole that you've found ~ Illegal? Prohibited yes. City Hall will have the relevant documentation.

monument

gbee wrote: »

There may be a loophole that you've found ~ Illegal? Prohibited yes. City Hall will have the relevant documentation.

There's no legal loophole. It's not a motorway so cyclists and pedestrians are legally allowed (even if you'd be crazy to do so).

I've this confirmed with the Department of Transport and the only change I know of since was the signs manual which is not the law (even if a load of planners and engineers etc have been led to think so).

Also...

gbee wrote: »

There were a few options including a pedestrian and cycle bore, but as the adjoining roads were classes as 'motorways' they would then have to build a cycle and pedestrian off ram or tunnel under the road.

They settled on the current three bores with vehicular traffic only.

I'm open to correction but I can't find anything to make be think that the roundabout north of the tunnel is motorway and the same goes for the dual carriageway at the south end.

Regardless of the roads up to it being a motorway or not, best practise and requirements under Irish law dictates that there should have been provision for cyclists and pedestrians.

Lemag

monument wrote: »

At very little extra cost at the time of construction cyclists could have been provided for.

I'm not a lawyer and this post is not legal advice.

The extra cost involved would surely have been quite significant. An additional or more likely a larger boring machine would have been required. I don't know what they were renting them for back then. Not cheap though, I'd imagine.

SomeFool

Lemag wrote: »

The extra cost involved would surely have been quite significant. An additional or more likely a larger boring machine would have been required. I don't know what they were renting them for back then. Not cheap though, I'd imagine.[/QUOTE

The majority of the tunnel was build in precast sections and sunk into the river so I reckon something would have been possible at little extra cost.

monument

Lemag wrote: »

The extra cost involved would surely have been quite significant. An additional or more likely a larger boring machine would have been required. I don't know what they were renting them for back then. Not cheap though, I'd imagine.

As the last poster points to, there were no tunnel boring machines (TBMs) used.
TBMs are hardly ever used for tunnels around 1km, would be very expensive to get one made and bring it in for such a small tunnel.

Providing for cyclists would have been cheaper than the cost of the bridge or extra tunnel that they'll eventually build if the country continues to be serious about cycling and walking.

hans aus dtschl

Monument, whith due respect the numbers of people who would wish to walk or cycle through the tunnel are quite small.

The roads and junctions adjoining it are dangerous enough in a car. The M8 starts at the north of the tunnel interchange, and a 120kmh HQDC is on the east. The western exit is an upward slip ramp onto a 60kmh dual carriageway with a very short "merging" lane.

There are proposals to make it far more complex. While I agree that bicycles could, and should have been provided for, I can't see it happening now.

monument

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Monument, whith due respect the numbers of people who would wish to walk or cycle through the tunnel are quite small.

The roads and junctions adjoining it are dangerous enough in a car. The M8 starts at the north of the tunnel interchange, and a 120kmh HQDC is on the east. The western exit is an upward slip ramp onto a 60kmh dual carriageway with a very short "merging" lane.

There are proposals to make it far more complex. While I agree that bicycles could, and should have been provided for, I can't see it happening now.

That's what's called a self profiling prophecy.

Do nothing to provid for cyclists or people walking, or to make it attractive for them, and then there'll be no demand. Make roads attractive to cars only and you'll get more car dependency and more and more traffic.

hans aus dtschl

Sadly, I believe it's better described as a reality.

The tunnel changed how the city developed, pretty radically. It's worth bearing in mind that when the tunnel was built, the city looked a lot different.

In all seriousness I wouldn't particularly like to cycle on a road, and negotiate junctions with that volume of traffic. It would be more practical to begin installing cycle/pedestrian friendly infrastructure on the north/east rather than launch into a new tunnel.

For instance, a means of getting cycle traffic from glounthaune/little island to the city other than having to use a 120km dual carriageway or major interchange would be a nice start. I know I personally avoid the tunnel interchange, and dislike the dunkettle interchange. I can only imagine what making these cycle-friendly would achieve. Financial justification for a tunnel bore for cyclists could come later if people could at least get to it safely.

banger01

I cycle the N25 from midleton to little island daily and the most terrifying part of it is the cobh and carightwohill slip roads, what realy annoys me are the holes where cats eyes were removed right along the line between the slip road and the driving lane which is where cyclists have to ride. If the old N25 (through carrigtwohill and on wards) was resurfaced it would make a great safe alternative. Reciently cycled through the JL tunnel .... with a cop car infront and behind me :P was for charity though nice to do as I could never see myself cycle through it legal or not under normal conditions.

Morrisseeee

It's very interesting to see what people percieve to be illegal & actually isn't !!
What I saw in the summer (& more dangerous than the tunnel) was someone cycling from the Sarsfield roundabout towards Mahon, over the Douglas interchange, ie. he was in the middle of a 4 lane highway with cars ducking/weaving left & right of him, I don't know how he survived :eek:

enas

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

For instance, a means of getting cycle traffic from glounthaune/little island to the city other than having to use a 120km dual carriageway or major interchange would be a nice start. I know I personally avoid the tunnel interchange, and dislike the dunkettle interchange. I can only imagine what making these cycle-friendly would achieve. Financial justification for a tunnel bore for cyclists could come later if people could at least get to it safely.

I can only perfectly agree to all this. What monument was saying, which was my opinion too in my first post, is that, "probably", provision for cyclists could have been provided at the time of construction for marginal extra cost. Even if not required in the immediate short term, when/if cycling will be sufficiently developed, the need to cross the river at this level will be felt, and this omission will be bitterly regretted when faced with the cost of retrofitting such a facility. In particular, when/if all you describe is ever realised. But anyway, it's no use crying over spilt milk.

monument

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Sadly, I believe it's better described as a reality.

The tunnel changed how the city developed, pretty radically. It's worth bearing in mind that when the tunnel was built, the city looked a lot different.

But a far better way of describing it is as a self profiling prophecy -- in planning only for the car and thus creating car demand and growth while cutting off other options to people (both commuting and leisure options). Saying it's reality sounds like there was no choice but not to provide for cyclists -- which is wrong, there were and are many choices.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

In all seriousness I wouldn't particularly like to cycle on a road, and negotiate junctions with that volume of traffic. It would be more practical to begin installing cycle/pedestrian friendly infrastructure on the north/east rather than launch into a new tunnel.

For instance, a means of getting cycle traffic from glounthaune/little island to the city other than having to use a 120km dual carriageway or major interchange would be a nice start. I know I personally avoid the tunnel interchange, and dislike the dunkettle interchange. I can only imagine what making these cycle-friendly would achieve. Financial justification for a tunnel bore for cyclists could come later if people could at least get to it safely.

enas wrote: »

I can only perfectly agree to all this. What monument was saying, which was my opinion too in my first post, is that, "probably", provision for cyclists could have been provided at the time of construction for marginal extra cost. Even if not required in the immediate short term, when/if cycling will be sufficiently developed, the need to cross the river at this level will be felt, and this omission will be bitterly regretted when faced with the cost of retrofitting such a facility. In particular, when/if all you describe is ever realised. But anyway, it's no use crying over spilt milk.

I agree with a lot of what enas says here.

But a wider point would be that you not only provide for cyclists when building the tunnel with marginal extra cost, you do the same on the roads around it.

Providing for cyclists in the tunnel would have required a cycling / ped tunnel which could have been attached to one of the road tunnels which were sunk, I'm guessing this could have been done a very little extra cost compared to the over all budget (you have everything on site, you have all the workers and the extras off-site construction and on-site could have been marginal).

Providing for cyclists at both end of the tunnel could have ranged from making sure the the hard shoulders were half cyclable and that there was provision for cyclists to bypass the more complicated / fast / heavily trafficked junctions to the Dutch or Danish treatments.

Other things could have been done at the time of construction at marginal costs to make simple connections. From just linking local roads on both side of the tunnel to the cycling tunnel or when they were building the newer roads some of the older roads could have been left as cycling routes. See map here of a range of options which could have been picked.

enas

monument wrote: »

But a wider point would be that you not only provide for cyclists when building the tunnel with marginal extra cost, you do the same on the roads around it.

Of course. My other big issue is that there should be a civilised way to cycle along the South Ring.

monument wrote: »

Providing for cyclists in the tunnel would have required a cycling / ped tunnel which could have been attached to one of the road tunnels which were sunk, I'm guessing this could have been done a very little extra cost compared to the over all budget (you have everything on site, you have all the workers and the extras off-site construction and on-site could have been marginal).

An example of that (not perfect at all with the escalators, but that's from the late 30's!):

http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2011/03/maastunnel-rotterdam.html

Another piece of impressive cycling infrastructure (not very related, as it doesn't fit into the "at a marginal extra cost" argument, but impressive nevertheless):

http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2009/11/nijmegens-big-bridge-for-cyclists.html

monument

enas wrote: »

monument wrote: »

But a wider point would be that you not only provide for cyclists when building the tunnel with marginal extra cost, you do the same on the roads around it.

Of course. My other big issue is that there should be a civilised way to cycle along the South Ring.

Yes, I don't know Cork much at all but that is clear from just looking at a map... In the map linked to in the last post I had started to plot a line along the South Ring Road but decided I needed to do some work today

hans aus dtschl

Yep monument, what you're saying is pretty obvious and self explanatory, but what I was saying is that the tunnel was originally planned when the city was an entirely different shape. The designers lacked foresight, but the actual need for the provision of cyclist facilities wasn't as obvious then, as it is now. Local towns increased in size in a very dramatic way that the original designers never understood.

The original choices were, I believe, between a high bridge, and a two-lane tunnel. They only decided on a four-lane tunnel late on. As such, the "needs of cars" were only barely met (and now are very inadequate).

You're obviously right in saying they should have........
But the fact is that they didn't. Subsequent upgrades of the interconnecting roads have neglected to add cycle infrastructure.

When I say "it's reality" I don't mean that there was no alternative. Nor do I mean that your diagnosis of a self-fulfilling prophecy is incorrect. What I'm saying is that sometimes you have to pick your battles, and whilst an effective cycling lobby group was not evident in the 80's, now would be a good time to amend the neighbouring road structure, with a view to inclusion in future tunnel development. Rather than to proclaim the necessary need for a cycle-capable tunnel which would involve multi-million euro investment.

I know I have made my feelings known to the council, when they were surveying as to the future development of the interchange. Whether it will be acted on, I don't know.

But the overall point I have is, it's difficult to justify the upgrade of the tunnel to accommodate cyclists now, with all the mistakes already made. It's very easy to justify the modifications of adjoining infrastructure. Telling 1970's ireland that they would spend €100million on a tunnel in Cork (it's not Dublin????) was a challenge. Telling them to make it four lanes was an ordeal. Telling them to include provisions for cyclists....who knows....They only just decided to allow bikes on trains down here ffs... My overall point was that sometimes you gotta fight the battles as they come.

hans aus dtschl

monument wrote: »

Yes, I don't know Cork much at all but that is clear from just looking at a map... In the map linked to in the last post I had started to plot a line along the South Ring Road but decided I needed to do some work today

Just to make it more clear for you the population in the area tripled in the space of 15 years. Largely due to the tunnel.

The tunnel itself and the interchange needed major upgrades. Yes they got it all wrong at first, there should have been a separate bore. But in their defence, this was the middle of nowhere, and they were spending what they considered to be astronomical money on it, when they didn't have any. In my opinion, it's wasn't the glaringly obvious mistake then as it is now.

tyler71

I'd have to agree with hans au dtschl, what's done is done as regards the tunnel and there won't be any major changes to it in the foreseeable future (apart from maybe adding a toll).
In any case even if the tunnel was accessible to bikes, negotiating the South Ring, Dunkettle roundabout and the other dual carriageways during rush hour would be unpleasant enough to put off a lot of people from using this option - although there is plenty of hard shoulder the volume and speed of the traffic and as was mentioned the slipways make this a route to avoid - on my (occasional) commutes into Little Island I go through the city centre and also tend to avoid the Dunkettle roundabout and take the Glounthane slip instead - this route is ok early morning but not so good going home where going east and taking the ferry is a better (but more expensive) option so the suggestion for a cycle route from Glounthane into the city is a much better and more achievable idea.

monument

tyler71 wrote: »

In any case even if the tunnel was accessible to bikes, negotiating the South Ring, Dunkettle roundabout and the other dual carriageways during rush hour would be unpleasant enough to put off a lot of people from using this option ...

Doing little they could have provided links to current local roads on both sides of the tunnel and they could have also used the old road between the Lower Glanmire Road and the old road now the R623 at Dunkettle to bypass the new massive roundbout.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Yep monument, what you're saying is pretty obvious and self explanatory, but what I was saying is that the tunnel was originally planned when the city was an entirely different shape. The designers lacked foresight, but the actual need for the provision of cyclist facilities wasn't as obvious then, as it is now. Local towns increased in size in a very dramatic way that the original designers never understood.

Oh, they knew what they were doing -- providing for the car only regardless of the requirements on them under law to provide for all. Only a fool can provide for one mode and not understand that other modes will not be used -- even if they could see growing car ownership in the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s. And they also knew the suburbs were growing. Thatcher minded planning continues to be the king in Ireland, or at least did so until very recently... Will it return?

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

But the overall point I have is, it's difficult to justify the upgrade of the tunnel to accommodate cyclists now, with all the mistakes already made.

I'm not saying right now, but if the state continues to aim for its targets for cycling and contuine to push for cycling, then eventually they will build a bridge or tunnel at this point or somewhere near enough to it -- be that in 15, 20 or 50 years down the road. And as has been pointed to, there may be other things which should be funded before it.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Telling 1970's ireland that they would spend €100million on a tunnel in Cork (it's not Dublin????) was a challenge. Telling them to make it four lanes was an ordeal. Telling them to include provisions for cyclists....who knows....They only just decided to allow bikes on trains down here ffs... My overall point was that sometimes you gotta fight the battles as they come.

I'm not fighting any battle, just saying they knew what they were doing and it was wrong. It's very healthy to look back on history and learn the lessons and realise that spending a few million extra would have been worth it and cheaper than retrofitting for a good few extra million.

HivemindXX

tyler71 wrote: »

In any case even if the tunnel was accessible to bikes, negotiating the South Ring, Dunkettle roundabout and the other dual carriageways during rush hour would be unpleasant enough to put off a lot of people from using this option - although there is plenty of hard shoulder the volume and speed of the traffic and as was mentioned the slipways make this a route to avoid - on my (occasional) commutes into Little Island I go through the city centre and also tend to avoid the Dunkettle roundabout and take the Glounthane slip instead - this route is ok early morning but not so good going home where going east and taking the ferry is a better (but more expensive) option so the suggestion for a cycle route from Glounthane into the city is a much better and more achievable idea.

Whatever about the tunnel and the South Ring there should be a useable alternative route. If the South Ring was a motorway this would be a legal requirement I believe. Since it's only motorway-lite there is no requirement to have an alternate route.

I don't know Cork very well, so perhaps I was misinformed, but when I had a short stint working in Little Island I mentioned that I was considering living in the city centre and taking my bike to Little Island and I was told I basically couldn't get there on a bicycle. That's a pretty sad indictment of the state of cycle infrastructure in the real capital.

If this was misinformation I'd be pleased to hear a nice way to make that commute during rush hour. I don't consider cycling a dual carriageway with motorway style slip roads to be nice though. I've cycled along the N11 south of Bray and I'll go to fairly extreme lengths to avoid that.