M40 motorway redesignation and demand management system [works ongoing]

cantalach

Treehelpplease wrote: »

Or can they even go on it on the test.

A learner cannot drive unaccompanied, so a qualified person would have to accompany them to the test centre anyway. If that journey involves a motorway then the qualified person can drive.

Treehelpplease

cantalach wrote: »

A learner cannot drive unaccompanied, so a qualified person would have to accompany them to the test centre anyway. If that journey involves a motorway then the qualified person can drive.

I mean the N40 is part of the test, so can a learner go on a future M40 accompanied by a tester? But then would they be allowed to drive on it (accompanied or not) without a tester to practise?

AugustusMinimus

Treehelpplease wrote: »

I mean the N40 is part of the test, so can a learner go on a future M40 accompanied by a tester? But then would they be allowed to drive on it (accompanied or not) without a tester to practise?

I don’t believe the N40 is used on every route. Plenty of test centres in the country too where a dual carriageway isn’t part of the route.

blindsider

Agree re tractors etc. I would almost propose leaving the N40 in situ and just banning tractors - and cyclists etc where there is no hard-shoulder.

KrisW1001

blindsider wrote: »

I would almost propose leaving the N40 in situ and just banning tractors - and cyclists etc where there is no hard-shoulder.

That's pretty much what a Motorway Order does.

However, tractors are still allowed on motorways if they can hold a speed of 50 km/h, which most modern machines can. But, while cyclists can be accommodated in crossing the river by taking a route through the city, are people really saying it's better to have slow agricultural vehicles squeezing along the streets of Cork City just so there can be blue signs along the South Ring Road?

If the classification were available right now, I'd make N40 an Expressway, which would bar cyclists and pedestrians, but still allow access for motorised traffic To be clear, I would also use the money saved to pay for improved cycleways along the route corridor - I'm only saying that cyclists shouldn't be on the N40 itself.

"Near pileups" are a problem of drivers not driving to the traffic conditions. These happen when slow private cars create a rolling roadblock too: just saying "no tractors" won't fix the problem.

As it was mentioned, N25 from Dunkettle to Carrigtwohill is a much better candidate for a Motorway order than N40 is: there's an alternative route in place, the junctions are widely spaced, it's already operating under a 120km/h limit.

Treehelpplease

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I don’t believe the N40 is used on every route. Plenty of test centres in the country too where a dual carriageway isn’t part of the route.

Correct, some avoid it by going under the flyover and heading to Wilton Roundabout, or turning right out of Doughcloyne to get to Togher. I only bring this up as someone pointed out that N40>M40 is more than just sign changes and I wouldn't be surprised if this played a part (likely a small one in fairness) in any delay which may have happened in the last three years

L1011

KrisW1001 wrote: »

However, tractors are still allowed on motorways if they can hold a speed of 50 km/h, which most modern machines can.

And are using road diesel, as agri diesel for under 50km/h. I'd suspect rather a lot of tractors doing low 50s on motorways are on agridiesel.

Truckermal

L1011 wrote: »

And are using road diesel, as agri diesel for under 50km/h. I'd suspect rather a lot of tractors doing low 50s on motorways are on agridiesel.

What p1ssez me off is they all use the middle lane from the Bandon Road Interchange all the way East bound. I've seen Teleporters on numerous occasions trundling along at 5MPH..

Chris_5339762

To be fair, the left lane should really be an auxiliary lane from the Bandon Road roundabout right the way to Douglas, like the M50s left hand lane for most of it.

cantalach

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

To be fair, the left lane should really be an auxiliary lane from the Bandon Road roundabout right the way to Douglas, like the M50s left hand lane for most of it.

True, though the M50’s leftmost non-through lane is a fourth lane rather than a third. There are three non-exiting lanes at all times. That said, the extra capacity is entirely justified given that the busiest section of the M50 carries 149k vehicles per day vs 87k for the N40 (2019 data for obvious reasons).

Truckermal

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

To be fair, the left lane should really be an auxiliary lane from the Bandon Road roundabout right the way to Douglas, like the M50s left hand lane for most of it.

Nobody uses it except me I'd say! I normally exit at the Kinsale Rd at normally see cars going from the second or third lane jump in top of me!

Chris_5339762

A crash on the Kinsale Road flyover one day had traffic backed up to Sarsfield road. Middle and right lane jammed to capacity, left lane (which of course goes right over the flyover) was empty.

I went up the left lane past the entire queue of traffic. Six cars waiting to get in at the scene of the accident.

Morally reprehensible of me, but legal.

hans aus dtschl

KrisW1001 wrote: »

That's pretty much what a Motorway Order does.

However, tractors are still allowed on motorways if they can hold a speed of 50 km/h, which most modern machines can. But, while cyclists can be accommodated in crossing the river by taking a route through the city, are people really saying it's better to have slow agricultural vehicles squeezing along the streets of Cork City just so there can be blue signs along the South Ring Road?

If the classification were available right now, I'd make N40 an Expressway, which would bar cyclists and pedestrians, but still allow access for motorised traffic To be clear, I would also use the money saved to pay for improved cycleways along the route corridor - I'm only saying that cyclists shouldn't be on the N40 itself.

"Near pileups" are a problem of drivers not driving to the traffic conditions. These happen when slow private cars create a rolling roadblock too: just saying "no tractors" won't fix the problem.

As it was mentioned, N25 from Dunkettle to Carrigtwohill is a much better candidate for a Motorway order than N40 is: there's an alternative route in place, the junctions are widely spaced, it's already operating under a 120km/h limit.

Agreed with much of this.
If you're hoping the motorway orders will remove the rolling roadblocks the motorway order is likely not a solution. If you don't want cyclists on the N25 or N40, just provide a better route.

Side note: unfortunately the alternate route to the N25 (the Old Youghal Road) is poor quality. It's currently getting a "greenway" (a wide footpath that loses priority at every single side road and junction) so that's likely not going to be used by most cyclists. Why they don't design proper cycle infrastructure on the N25 and N40 alignments is a ongoing mystery to me: there's an abundance of money available for such projects currently and plenty of international experience available. You'll have cyclists all along that road for the foreseeable future and the money's in the bin.

cantalach

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

It's currently getting a "greenway" (a wide footpath that loses priority at every single side road and junction) so that's likely not going to be used by most cyclists.

I wasn’t aware of that - haven’t been on the bike out that direction for a while. So even on the alternate route running in parallel to the main vehicular route, cyclists are pushed into second place. That’s crazy. The biggest issue with the emerging cycling infrastructure is that it isn’t designed by cyclists.

hans aus dtschl

cantalach wrote: »

I wasn’t aware of that - haven’t been on the bike out that direction for a while. So even on the alternate route running in parallel to the main vehicular route, cyclists are pushed into second place. That’s crazy. The biggest issue with the emerging cycling infrastructure is that it isn’t designed by cyclists.

Yes unfortunately.
They didn't follow the National Cycle Manual "because it's not an urban area and won't see much use, so there's no need".

Edit: I don't mean to derail the thread, but again, if you want the M40 designation in order to remove the rolling roadblocks, then I've bad news for you.
Also if you want the M40 designation to improve safety, it's unlikely to be a significant factor either.

If you want a smooth flow on the N40, consider removal of as many short-distance commuters as possible.
This would be MUCH easier if the alternate modes of transport were attractive. And this is why the "moaners" like me are saying "please put in a proper active transport route FFS".

Markcheese

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Yes unfortunately.
They didn't follow the National Cycle Manual "because it's not an urban area and won't see much use, so there's no need".

Edit: I don't mean to derail the thread, but again, if you want the M40 designation in order to remove the rolling roadblocks, then I've bad news for you.
Also if you want the M40 designation to improve safety, it's unlikely to be a significant factor either.

If you want a smooth flow on the N40, consider removal of as many short-distance commuters as possible.
This would be MUCH easier if the alternate modes of transport were attractive. And this is why the "moaners" like me are saying "please put in a proper active transport route FFS".

As in a m40 bus route ? With a stop at every junction , a priority lane on every slip , and a link to as many other bus lanes / park and rides as possible from dunkettle to curraheen or ballincolig ? Even potentially hard shoulder running if necessary .
Nah Shure who'd want it....

blindsider

VMS in use this evening - warning of 'Low Road Temperatures'

Good to see.

cantalach

blindsider wrote: »

VMS in use this evening - warning of 'Low Road Temperatures'

Hmm...

So I have tens of thousands of thermal sensors hard-wired to my brain which alert me to low temperatures as soon as I step out my front door with car keys in hand. And I have a pair of high resolution stereoscopic optical sensors - also hard-wired to my brain - which can warn me when traffic is building ahead and my journey is likely to take longer than planned. One snag with these optical sensors is that they don’t work very well in bad weather at night time on sections of the N40 that aren’t lit. TII prefers to spend its budget on things far sexier than lighting...

I feel better now

blindsider

Well, I'm glad you feel better :rolleyes:

I was posting that info so that those interested would know that the VMS seems to be being introduced on a gradual basis.

You obviously have a far superior knowledge of national and international road safety standards than me, hence your frustration and need to vent on a messageboard.

If you feel so strongly on the matter, the info below is probably where you should direct comments.

TII
Parkgate Business Centre,
Parkgate Street,
Dublin 8,
D08 DK10,
Ireland,
Tel: +353 1 6463600
info@tii.ie

European Transport Safety Council
Our Office
20 Avenue des Celtes
Brussels B-1040
Belgium

Telephone
+32 2 230 4106

Email
information@etsc.eu


I presume other warnings such as Fog, Heavy Rain, Wet Roads, Traffic Jams etc etc are equally not needed...I wonder why they bother with VMS at all...and all over Europe too...pointless really :rolleyes:

Markcheese

The vms in carrigtohil has had something written on it for ages , first it was warning of garda covid checkpoints,and queung traffic ahead , then a covid message for a month or so , and I did see the low temperature warning yesterday ,
And that's grand since Tii have built the signs anyway ., But the big thing (I reckon ) is the ability to do a variable speed limit to match conditions , its fine saying I have eyes ,sure why bother with signs ,but people tend to drive on ..and can be slow to react wether it's ice ,fog ,even just rain ..

cantalach

blindsider wrote: »

Well, I'm glad you feel better :rolleyes:

I was posting that info so that those interested would know that the VMS seems to be being introduced on a gradual basis.

You obviously have a far superior knowledge of national and international road safety standards than me, hence your frustration and need to vent on a messageboard.

If you feel so strongly on the matter, the info below is probably where you should direct comments.

TII
Parkgate Business Centre,
Parkgate Street,
Dublin 8,
D08 DK10,
Ireland,
Tel: +353 1 6463600
info@tii.ie

European Transport Safety Council
Our Office
20 Avenue des Celtes
Brussels B-1040
Belgium

Telephone
+32 2 230 4106

Email
information@etsc.eu


I presume other warnings such as Fog, Heavy Rain, Wet Roads, Traffic Jams etc etc are equally not needed...I wonder why they bother with VMS at all...and all over Europe too...pointless really :rolleyes:

Why the aggression? I was making a joke-y reply. Hence the smiley at the end. I wasn’t being aggressive towards you personally. I was expressing frustration at what a huge mis-prioritisation I believe this project to be, as I have on previous occasions when it has been discussed here. And I’ve already had lots of correspondence with TII in relation to this.

In the real world, people comment on how dark the N40 is, esp. between the tunnel and Bloomfield. They comment about the danger of cyclists using the N40. I have never once heard somebody comment the absence of electronic signage on the N40. Maybe we should spend money on the substantive issues before spending it on fluff.

You hit the nail on the head with the last part of your response, though you were being sarcastic. I think VMS is fairly pointless. In years spent driving in Australia, UK, US, and the Continent, I cannot think of one occasion when I’ve been thankful for VMS. It is certainly important to know the current speed limit in places where adaptive speed limits apply (Germany and the M25 for me), but you don’t need enormous overhead gantries to communicate speed limits. Apart from adaptive speed, my verdict on VMS is that it is useless noise. Was it *really* all that useful that it told you that it was cold last night? Didn’t you kinda know that anyway? Even if you didn’t, most cars manufactured in the last 10 years will give you a low temperature warning anyway - even my daughter’s entry level no-frills hatchback does this.

blindsider

Not being aggressive - but def. being sarcastic. You replied directly to me, and I to you.

Thanks for clarifying the intent of your post, and I'm happy to leave it at that - I'm certainly not looking for an argument.

As to the + - of VMS.....let's wait and see....

Thanks.

cantalach

blindsider wrote: »

Not being aggressive - but def. being sarcastic. You replied directly to me, and I to you.

Thanks for clarifying the intent of your post, and I'm happy to leave it at that - I'm certainly not looking for an argument.

As to the + - of VMS.....let's wait and see....

Thanks.

Sure, fair enough.

kub

Nice to see these signs at last giving relevant details tonight the following ones were warning of tonight's tunnel closure: Approaching the Bloomfield Interchange from the N28, East Bound before KRR, East Bound again at J9 East Bound, this was my exit so i assume the ones further down were the same.

I did notice earlier that the one between the Douglas West on ramp and the KRR West Bound was showing " 1 min to Junc 1", on test I assume.

Chris_5339762

To my delight that one was saying "N40 J1 6 minutes" this morning! One of them is working.

The rest are still spewing out the generic COVID hold-firm message. But its progress! However, there is still a hired VMS jammed in the verge eastbound advertising the tunnel closures.

marno21

As Chris said, the sign on the N40 West after J7 now has journey times during the day. "N40 J1 6 MIN" is its preset given the lack of variance in journey times along there.

13 signs now in regular use:

N40 East after J2 (Covid), J4 (Covid), J6 (Covid), J7 (Roadworks), J9 (Roadworks)
N40 West after J7 (Journey times) and after J5 (Covid)
N71 (Covid)
N28 (Covid)
N27 citybound from airport (Covid) and outbound on the S City Link (Covid)
N25 West after J4 (Covid)
R641 at Sarsfield Road R/A (Covid)

No sign of any messages yet on the sign on the Ballincollig bypass. Several uncommissioned signs also around Dunkettle on the N8, M8, N25 and N40.

Markcheese

Has anyone else noticed how bright the overhead signs are ,went past the carrigtohil one last week at night and the glare off it was incredible , I was trying to look away from it ...
Maybe it was a malfunction ... But it was lighting up the road in front of it for a long way..

AugustusMinimus

One of the signs appear to be broken already. It’s the one beside the Barr’s GAA club. A section of it is showing yellow text as green.

marno21

Markcheese wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed how bright the overhead signs are ,went past the carrigtohil one last week at night and the glare off it was incredible , I was trying to look away from it ...
Maybe it was a malfunction ... But it was lighting up the road in front of it for a long way..

Interesting. The N27 outbound sign that would give you a headache has been toned down at night.

My guess was that they were naturally on brighter settings during the day and not being turned down after sunset.

(This happened when RTÉ installed their new mast at Mullaghanish and left the aircraft warning lights on the daytime setting at night for a few weeks after they were first commissioned, which acted like a strobe light over a large swathe of NW Cork)

marno21

The Covid shïte is finally gone off the signs and they’ve all been repurposed for journey times now

Much nicer to look at. All that’s needed is Dunkettle as a destination as that’s the most variable journey time on the route network around Cork. Ringaskiddy is an especially useful one

It’s clear that people are out and about again now that every evening the signs read “Queue ahead at J10 Mahon. Expect delays”