South link Works

Anyone know what they are actually doing between kinsale flyover and sarsfields flyover on both sides. Causing chaos in peak traffic.

Also they seem have put in a beam on link between the kinsale rd roundabout and the douglas exit, could this be the start of a footbridge for the park?

kub

You must mean on the South Ring Road, now known as the N40 and soon the M40.


What they are working on is upgrading the current barriers etc to motorway type standard and they are also wiring and installing live warning signs with expected travel times to various places such as Little Island etc.


The South Link, is the section of road between the Kinsale Road Roundabout and the The Elysian.

kub

kub wrote: »

You must mean on the South Ring Road, now known as the N40 and soon the M40.


What they are working on is upgrading the current barriers etc to motorway type standard and they are also wiring and installing live warning signs with expected travel times to various places such as Little Island etc.


The South Link, is the section of road between the Kinsale Road Roundabout and the The Elysian.

I and many others call it the link, but now i know.

Why bother calling it the M40, its not a motorway and i can never see it being 120km per hour.

cheers for the info anyway

kub

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I and many others call it the link, but now i know.

Why bother calling it the M40, its not a motorway and i can never see it being 120km per hour.

cheers for the info anyway

You are right, many people call it " the link ", I suppose it has gained a local nick name but the boring detail is correct ðŸ‘.

As regards the speed limit, it will be 100, just like the M50, this is more a safety thing from what I can gather.
Obviously the road is lethal for cyclists who currently can legally cycle on it as it is.

Chris_5339762

Deleted User wrote: »

I and many others call it the link, but now i know.

Why bother calling it the M40, its not a motorway and i can never see it being 120km per hour.

cheers for the info anyway

I doubt they'll ever up it to 120kmh, but there is a plan to redesignate it as motorway.

hans aus dtschl

kub wrote: »

You are right, many people call it " the link ", I suppose it has gained a local nick name but the boring detail is correct ðŸ‘.

As regards the speed limit, it will be 100, just like the M50, this is more a safety thing from what I can gather.
Obviously the road is lethal for cyclists who currently can legally cycle on it as it is.

Don't forget with M status it will also remove tractors too. I've seen tractors and cyclists on the N40. It's not ideal for either with current traffic levels. I cycle a lot myself but would hate to rely on the N40.

You'd have to say that a dedicated secondary route is needed from Douglas through to Ovens. Tramore valley park could be the start of this corridor for cyclists (if the councils had the will) but tractors don't have that option. I'm not a farmer myself so not really sure what to say about this. NRA can't just make it an M status and hope the they disappear (or worse, that they go through the city)! Someone's going to have to actually think about this a bit.

blindsider

Deleted User wrote: »

I and many others call it the link, but now i know.

Why bother calling it the M40, its not a motorway and i can never see it being 120km per hour.

cheers for the info anyway

The M50 is 100KPH...just sayin'....

zilog_jones

It's quite normal for high-traffic urban motorways to have lower speed limits. But there's much more to what makes a road a motorway than just that.

chalkitdown1

Isn't the tail end of it from Wilton onwards already 120kph?

grogi

Deleted User wrote: »

I and many others call it the link, but now i know.

Why bother calling it the M40, its not a motorway and i can never see it being 120km per hour.

cheers for the info anyway

To prevent cyclists and tractors from it. It's not only about speed.

Padraig Mor

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

Isn't the tail end of it from Wilton onwards already 120kph?

No, that's from about Curraheen onwards.

grogi wrote: »

To prevent cyclists and tractors from it. It's not only about speed.

Unfortunately, motorway designation does not exclude tractors in Ireland, and they are frequently seen on them.

j8wk2feszrnpao

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

Isn't the tail end of it from Wilton onwards already 120kph?

From about the Greyhound track to the end of Ballinollog, it's 120kph.
From Little Island to the end of Carrigtwhohill, it's also 120kph.

grogi

Padraig Mor wrote: »

No, that's from about Curraheen onwards.


Unfortunately, motorway designation does not exclude tractors in Ireland, and they are frequently seen on them.

But they exclude vehicles that cannot drive faster than 50km/h... What's the max speed of a typical tractor?

Padraig Mor

grogi wrote: »

But they exclude vehicles that cannot drive faster than 50km/h... What's the max speed of a typical tractor?

Most tractors would have a max speed over that - some 80 km/h. The British have a better system - vehicles running agri diesel are only legally allowed to drive at a max 30mph, but top speed needs to be over 30 to drive on motorways - result: if you're using agri diesel, you can't use the motorway.

hans aus dtschl

grogi wrote: »

To prevent cyclists and tractors from it. It's not only about speed.

I personally believe that's their primary motivation in looking for an M status.

And I also think it's a bit misguided. Just banning them won't magically create a preferable route. Same thing from Little Island to Carrigtohill / Midleton.

By all means upgrade the secondary routes and designate them as N. But an M without an equivalent N route is a waste of time, in my eyes.

Markcheese

grogi wrote: »

But they exclude vehicles that cannot drive faster than 50km/h... What's the max speed of a typical tractor?

Most tractors would have a 40 kph gear box, but many would have a 50 kph box..
But the the regs talk about a design speed of 50 kph, so the tractor doesn't have to be traveling at 50, and How's a garda supposed to know which is which at a glance, pretty sure most diggers and loaders wouldn't be designed to travel at 50
Though,
In theory a tractor going from ballincolig to little island will have to go through the city centre... They won't, but there is no other route, nor is there likely to be another route, (a new tunnel under the Lee)

kub

I always wonder what business tractors have on dual carriageway's travelling long distances
Surely they are designed for fields and obviously short journeys between those fields and the farm itself.

Why can't whatever it is they are transporting be put on a truck, that can drive at a more appropriate rate for a dual carriageway?

Padraig Mor

kub wrote: »

I always wonder what business tractors have on dual carriageway's travelling long distances
Surely they are designed for fields and obviously short journeys between those fields and the farm itself.

Why can't whatever it is they are transporting be put on a truck, that can drive at a more appropriate rate for a dual carriageway?

Because it's cheaper to use a tractor than do the job right.

hans aus dtschl

kub wrote: »

I always wonder what business tractors have on dual carriageway's travelling long distances
Surely they are designed for fields and obviously short journeys between those fields and the farm itself.

Why can't whatever it is they are transporting be put on a truck, that can drive at a more appropriate rate for a dual carriageway?

What you're saying makes sense in the context of a motorway, but not an N road.

What's an appropriate speed for a dual carriageway? Right now, the N40 is moving at about 10kmh. You'd be able to run faster than the cars. Certainly cycle faster than them or drive a tractor faster than them. There's no obligation to drive at the speed limit, hence the need for an overtaking lane.

So the idea that tractors shouldn't be on the N40 now because cars are faster is a fallacy. Many trucks won't do the speed limit either. You'll have plenty trucks, cranes and other equipment going at 40kmh, even after you ban tractors.

Hence my point that banning tractors and cyclists is flawed logic. These roads (N40, N25) were not designed just for short-distance commuter cars: if anything it's those we should be looking to partially ban.

Edit:
And again I'm not a farmer, but if you wanted to buy a piece of farm equipment in Little Island and bring it back to your farm on Carr's Hill for instance, what would your options be? Hire a truck, to bring the tractor to Little Island, to load the tractor and piece of equipment on to the truck and then drive them both back to Carr's Hill and unload them at your farm? And why? Because some short-distance car users would be inconvenienced?

hans aus dtschl

Markcheese wrote: »

In theory a tractor going from ballincolig to little island will have to go through the city centre... They won't, but there is no other route, nor is there likely to be another route, (a new tunnel under the Lee)

That's my point in the fallacy of designating an M40: what's the overall purpose other than to send some traffic back through the city?

Speaking with my cyclist hat on: most cyclists don't want to be on the grade separated roads, so if the alternate route is continuous and/or has a proper surface, you wouldn't see them on the dual carriageway anyway. As it is, even when they're allowed, many avoid the grade separated roads.

Simply calling these roads "Motorways" doesn't solve the problem, it just hides the problem.

And we haven't even begun to talk about L-plate drivers......

So yeah, an M40 and M25 in isolation are terrible ideas right now.

marno21

TII are working on an N40 motorway reclassification study at the minute. It's part of the N40 Demand Management Study that was published a few years back. Reclassifying the N40 as a motorway would remove non-motorway traffic from the road which causes delays at peak times, are a danger on the road and cause incidents which affect travel times. The only issue I can see with the road that could cause hassle with it becoming a motorway is the Vernon Mount exit at J6 Westbound. The rest of the N40 (and indeed the N22 Ballincollig bypass and N25 East Cork Parkway from Dunkettle to Carrigtwohill) are motorway standard and can be reclassified. It is unclear at present whether the N22 and N25 will be included, however there are long term plans for these roads to be extended to Macroom and Youghal respectively, which would leave one continuous motorway grade road between Macroom and Youghal. Not classifying it as motorway would be daft.

It is very common for people in Cork to refer to the N40 as "the Link". I often call it that because most people don't know it by any other name. I'd imagine the reason for the mixups is that the first incarnation of a dual carriageway in Cork ran from the Elysian to the dump (opened 1984) before being extended to the Kinsale Road Roundabout, onto Douglas (1990) and then it terminated at the Rochestown Road (1992). The section to Wilton opened later in 1995 and didn't continue on to Ballincollig until 2005. For a few years the only "Link" in the area was from the Elysian out to the dump/KRR/Douglas hence the confusion.

The N40 will remain at 100km/h if redesignated motorway except the current 120km/h section west of Curraheen. If anything, the M40 will gain variable speed limits going forward. Limits of 60km/h and 80km/h would yield smoother traffic flow on the Douglas flyover and other pinchpoints at peak times.

As kub said, the works on the N40 at the KRR westbound are to facilitate the installation of a gantry for a VMS sign, which will form part of the N40 Intelligent Transport System. It will be used to give drivers information on travel times, accidents, weather conditions, road closures etc. There is currently a few pilot ones on portable signs giving travel time information, eastbound after the KRR flyover, on the M8 southbound just before J18. These will be replaced with permanent signs in the near future. There are 13 of these signs being installed on the N40 and approach roads, works are ongoing or complete on 9 of them, and on 2 of the 6 CCTV masts required for traffic monitoring. Other construction sites are on the Ballincollig bypass eastbound, Airport Hill citybound, near the Viaduct citybound, on the N40 eastbound at Curraheen. Fabrication of the steel gantries to be installed on the bases is currently underway offsite.

grogi

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Edit:
And again I'm not a farmer, but if you wanted to buy a piece of farm equipment in Little Island and bring it back to your farm on Carr's Hill for instance, what would your options be? Hire a truck, to bring the tractor to Little Island, to load the tractor and piece of equipment on to the truck and then drive them both back to Carr's Hill and unload them at your farm? And why? Because some short-distance car users would be inconvenienced?

Exactly that. The freedom of a person is slightly reduced to benefit the rest of society. At the same time I'm not saying that is a good idea in the current scheme of roads around the city. But banning cyclists would be warmly welcomed.

TheChizler

grogi wrote: »

Exactly that. The freedom of a person is slightly reduced to benefit the rest of society. At the same time I'm not saying that is a good idea in the current scheme of roads around the city. But banning cyclists would be warmly welcomed.

How many cyclists have got in your way on the N40 though? There's the occasional one in the hard shoulder IME, doesn't impact me and the only danger is to themselves at junctions.

grogi

TheChizler wrote: »

How many cyclists have got in your way on the N40 though? There's the occasional one in the hard shoulder IME, doesn't impact me and the only danger is to themselves at junctions.

The real question you should ask is how many died.

And of course traffic on a hard shoulder introduces disruptions. Some people will slow down, some change a lane. With a cyclist moving at best at 35-40kmh, that is a lot of interactions. They also introduce a lot of uncertainty at the ramps.

I have nothing against cyclists. I cycle myself too - not excessively (around 100km/week) - but I am very firm that N40 is not a place for a cyclist.

TheChizler

grogi wrote: »

The real question you should ask is how many died...

That has nothing to do with benefiting non-cyclist users of the road, which is what your post was referring to.

grogi

TheChizler wrote: »

That has nothing to do with benefiting non-cyclist users of the road, which is what your post was referring to.

Of course it has.

Any incident with a cyclist is a cost for society:
* direct financial cost of emergency services dispatch
* indirect cost of those emergency services not being able to attend other incidents
* cost for the economy: in both of lost productivity while the cyclist is unable to work and lost time for any road user when a road is closed or congested.

hans aus dtschl

grogi wrote: »

Of course it has.

Any incident with a cyclist is a cost for society:
* direct financial cost of emergency services dispatch
* indirect cost of those emergency services not being able to attend other incidents
* cost for the economy: in both of lost productivity while the cyclist is unable to work and lost time for any road user when a road is closed or congested.

You could reduce cyclist deaths to zero overnight by banning bicycles entirely.
But that doesn't actually solve any problems.

What could solve the problems would be provision of an appropriate N road.

hans aus dtschl

grogi wrote: »

The real question you should ask is how many died.

And of course traffic on a hard shoulder introduces disruptions. Some people will slow down, some change a lane. With a cyclist moving at best at 35-40kmh, that is a lot of interactions. They also introduce a lot of uncertainty at the ramps.

I have nothing against cyclists. I cycle myself too - not excessively (around 100km/week) - but I am very firm that N40 is not a place for a cyclist.

Fine, ban all cyclists and tractors from everywhere. Problem solved.
Now, let's discuss L-plate drivers....

OR

Let's discuss the need for a direct secondary route.

You appear to be approaching this from a "facilitate cars first" perspective, but it's literally the inverse of what we should do, it should always be a priority to first facilitate pedestrians, then cyclists, public transport, HGV's and finally private motors, in that order.

hans aus dtschl

grogi wrote: »

Exactly that. The freedom of a person is slightly reduced to benefit the rest of society. At the same time I'm not saying that is a good idea in the current scheme of roads around the city. But banning cyclists would be warmly welcomed.

It doesn't benefit the rest of society though, as it specifically encourages car usage and discourages pedestrians and cyclists. So encouraging the mode of transport with a highest cost of ownership above the others.

TheChizler

grogi wrote: »

Of course it has.

Any incident with a cyclist is a cost for society:
* direct financial cost of emergency services dispatch
* indirect cost of those emergency services not being able to attend other incidents
* cost for the economy: in both of lost productivity while the cyclist is unable to work and lost time for any road user when a road is closed or congested.

True but is that really what goes through the mind of those who would warmly welcome banning bicycles from a dual carriageway?

hans aus dtschl

TheChizler wrote: »

True but is that really what goes through the mind of those who would warmly welcome banning bicycles from a dual carriageway?

It's irrelevant.
The idea that re-categorising the N40 as a motorway will allow better traffic throughput is a fallacy.

What's the AADT at Douglas and the tunnel? It's overcapacity. Reclassifying it in the hope of removing less than a % of traffic is deckchairs on the titanic territory as far as I can see.

They need to build the M40 North. They need to designate a secondary Douglas-Ballincollig route for L plate drivers and slow moving vehicles. They can call the remaining N40 whatever they want, or just introduce local restrictions like at the tunnel.

To reduce some of the biggest tailbacks I've seen on the N40, you'd have to ban puddles and ban massive fires in Douglas.

Reclassification is currently not a useful exercise. Tailbacks will remain.

grogi

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

It's irrelevant.
The idea that re-categorising the N40 as a motorway will allow better traffic throughput is a fallacy.

What's the AADT at Douglas and the tunnel? It's overcapacity. Reclassifying it in the hope of removing less than a % of traffic is deckchairs on the titanic territory as far as I can see.

They need to build the M40 North. They need to designate a secondary Douglas-Ballincollig route for L plate drivers and slow moving vehicles. They can call the remaining N40 whatever they want, or just introduce local restrictions like at the tunnel.

To reduce some of the biggest tailbacks I've seen on the N40, you'd have to ban puddles and ban massive fires in Douglas.

Reclassification is currently not a useful exercise. Tailbacks will remain.

But the reclassification is not about capacity, but safety. While a ban like that would marginally improve capacity, the overall tailbacks would remain.

marno21

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

It's irrelevant.
The idea that re-categorising the N40 as a motorway will allow better traffic throughput is a fallacy.

What's the AADT at Douglas and the tunnel? It's overcapacity. Reclassifying it in the hope of removing less than a % of traffic is deckchairs on the titanic territory as far as I can see.

They need to build the M40 North. They need to designate a secondary Douglas-Ballincollig route for L plate drivers and slow moving vehicles. They can call the remaining N40 whatever they want, or just introduce local restrictions like at the tunnel.

To reduce some of the biggest tailbacks I've seen on the N40, you'd have to ban puddles and ban massive fires in Douglas.

Reclassification is currently not a useful exercise. Tailbacks will remain.

TII would love to build M40 North. But there are many reasons why they can’t:

1. The current Government’s approach to capital investment is pathetic
2. The current Minister for Transport is a sham
3. Most roads projects being advanced at the minute is because they have political “babysitters”. There are 2 major road schemes to start shortly, the N5 Westport-Turlough and the N22 Macroom-Ballyvourney. They are being heavily pushed by Michael Ring and Michael Creed respectively, hence the rush to get them started. There is no one pushing for a Cork North Ring Road.

Until there is a major change in attitudes towards transport capital investment, TII have to make do with what they have and sweat the existing assets. Hence they now implementing the N40 Demand Management Study in the short term (available on their website)

hans aus dtschl

grogi wrote: »

But the reclassification is not about capacity, but safety. While a ban like that would marginally improve capacity, the overall tailbacks would remain.

Whose safety?
Are you talking about banning people in the interest of their own safety? Or can you point to the some of the accidents that have been caused by slow moving vehicles? If it was even remotely about safety, we'd be ticketing 100's of cars an hour on the N40 for driving over the speed limit.
Not to mention that we're talking about rerouting tractors through the centre of the city.

So yeah, that's a ridiculous idea, that it would be "for safety".

marno21

From the N40 Demand Management Study:

Upgrade of N40 to Motorway Status will remove LDrivers, pedestrians, cyclists and slow vehicles and will have safety and capacity benefits:

Currently, the N40, while a national primary road with dual carriageway and grade separated junctions, is not a motorway. The consequence of this, from a traffic perspective, is that pedestrians, cyclists, learner drivers and slow moving vehicles are not currently excluded from the N40.

This has two significant effects:
Firstly, there is a safety issue with permitting pedestrians and cyclists access to a high speed and heavily
trafficked road. While it is acknowledged that pedestrian and cyclist numbers using the N40 are low, it is a
fact that, of the three fatal collisions on the N40 between 2005 and 2013, two of the fatalities were
pedestrians. Upgrading the N40 to motorway status would mean that pedestrians and cyclists are legally
prohibited from using the road, thus improving safety.

Secondly, the presence of slow moving vehicles during times of high traffic flows along the N40 can have a
disproportionally significant impact on traffic flows. The reason for this is that the presence of a slow moving
vehicle effectively removes most of the traffic from one lane of the road over a short distance as drivers
attempt to overtake. This causes a restriction on traffic flow and consequent congestion. Upgrading the N40
to motorway status would legally prohibit slow moving vehicles from using the road

Seems to me that it's a no brainer.

TheChizler

marno21 wrote: »

From the N40 Demand Management Study:



Seems to me that it's a no brainer.

On the second point you're only solving the problem of vehicles with a max speed of 50(?) km/h, how many of those do you ever see?

marno21

TheChizler wrote: »

On the second point you're only solving the problem of vehicles with a max speed of 50(?) km/h, how many of those do you ever see?

I have seen two tractors on the N40, both westbound between 5pm and 6pm in the last few weeks. One was on the Douglas flyover which would cause gridlock were there to be an accident.

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

TII would love to build M40 North. But there are many reasons why they can’t:

1. The current Government’s approach to capital investment is pathetic
2. The current Minister for Transport is a sham
3. Most roads projects being advanced at the minute is because they have political “babysitters”. There are 2 major road schemes to start shortly, the N5 Westport-Turlough and the N22 Macroom-Ballyvourney. They are being heavily pushed by Michael Ring and Michael Creed respectively, hence the rush to get them started. There is no one pushing for a Cork North Ring Road.

Until there is a major change in attitudes towards transport capital investment, TII have to make do with what they have and sweat the existing assets. Hence they now implementing the N40 Demand Management Study in the short term (available on their website)

I don't disagree with any of that.
Demand management makes perfect sense: I've seen it work in Germany.

I'm just saying that recategorising it as an M status without addressing where the resulting L-plate drivers and heavy machinery will go instead is counter-productive. The TII document just glosses over this detail, as it doesn't really concern them. They put three paragraphs into it, in total. It's not fair to insinuate that they've addressed the issue: their scope was to find a short term solution that would increase throughput by a small amount.

marno21

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I don't disagree with any of that.
Demand management makes perfect sense: I've seen it work in Germany.

I'm just saying that recategorising it as an M status without addressing where the resulting L-plate drivers and heavy machinery will go instead is counter-productive. The TII document just glosses over this detail, as it doesn't really concern them. They put three paragraphs into it, in total. It's not fair to insinuate that they've addressed the issue: their scope was to find a short term solution that would increase throughput by a small amount.

It's not TII's responsibility as to where the L plates and heavy machinery goes. It's TII's responsibility to provide the best level of services possible on the N40 as it's classed as a strategic element of the national road network. Even more so between Bloomfield and Dunkettle as that's part of the TEN-T Core network and will have to be reclassified motorway for that reason anyway. If J9-J11 is being redesignated, they also have to redesignate to J6 due to the lack of places for non motorway traffic to leave.

In a similar fashion, TII don't care about how heavy machinery and learner drivers get around Dublin, or Limerick, especially between the N4 and N3 exits where there is no clear defined alternative route.

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

From the N40 Demand Management Study:



Seems to me that it's a no brainer.

Sorry I've replied to you above: I've no problem with saying the N40 should be a motorway. And you can do the same with Carrigtwohill to Midleton, ban the locals from getting in and out of their houses on the N25: job almost done overnight. But it doesn't address the reason it's not currently motorway standard at all.
So yes, my issue isn't with the technical concept of it being Motorway standard (the safest road type in the state) rather that simply calling it motorway isn't sufficient as there's currently no alternative route for some few users.

And you can't say "the primary motivation is safety" while rerouting slower HGV's through the city centre. Of course you'll improve the safety of that stretch of N/M40 but at what cost to safety elsewhere? So if it was about safety, you could drop and enforce the speed limit on the whole N40 overnight. That's not the purpose. The purpose is to achieve more throughput.

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

It's not TII's responsibility as to where the L plates and heavy machinery goes. It's TII's responsibility to provide the best level of services possible on the N40 as it's classed as a strategic element of the national road network. Even more so between Bloomfield and Dunkettle as that's part of the TEN-T Core network and will have to be reclassified motorway for that reason anyway. If J9-J11 is being redesignated, they also have to redesignate to J6 due to the lack of places for non motorway traffic to leave.

In a similar fashion, TII don't care about how heavy machinery and learner drivers get around Dublin, or Limerick, especially between the N4 and N3 exits where there is no clear defined alternative route.

Yes I believe we're on the same page entirely here.

TII's scope was to find a short-term (ideally cost-effective) measure to increase throughput on the N40. That was their brief.

marno21

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Sorry I've replied to you above: I've no problem with saying the N40 should be a motorway. And you can do the same with Carrigtwohill to Midleton, ban the locals from getting in and out of their houses on the N25: job almost done overnight. But it doesn't address the reason it's not currently motorway standard at all.
So yes, my issue isn't with the technical concept of it being Motorway standard (the safest road type in the state) rather that simply calling it motorway isn't sufficient as there's currently no alternative route for some few users.

And you can't say "the primary motivation is safety" while rerouting slower HGV's through the city centre. Of course you'll improve the safety of that stretch of N/M40 but at what cost to safety elsewhere? So if it was about safety, you could drop and enforce the speed limit on the whole N40 overnight. That's not the purpose. The purpose is to achieve more throughput.

Oh I don't disagree with needing to provide routes for local traffic, but that comes under the remit of the Council, not TII.

Carrigtwohill-Midleton is to be upgraded to motorway standard over the next few years via the provision of distributor roads for local traffic. But that's a much easier job given the rural nature of the scheme. It's more difficult with the N40 given it's constrained by development.

The reality here is this, and we can both agree on it. The main reason the N40 Demand Management Study is being emphasised is the lack of will to properly invest in infrastructure. This whole thing could be solved via the Southern Distributor Road, greenways, improved roadside ped/cycle facilities, North Ring Road etc. But instead, the Government don't want to invest in actual infrastructure so are directing TII to sweat assets everywhere, which only has a moderate improvement.

This could come to a head if there's ever an issue with the JLT that requires a lengthy closure. Absolutely ridiculous that the JLT carries such volumes with absolutely no redundancy at all.

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

The reality here is this, and we can both agree on it. The main reason the N40 Demand Management Study is being emphasised is the lack of will to properly invest in infrastructure. This whole thing could be solved via the Southern Distributor Road, greenways, improved roadside ped/cycle facilities, North Ring Road etc. But instead, the Government don't want to invest in actual infrastructure so are directing TII to sweat assets everywhere, which only has a moderate improvement.

This could come to a head if there's ever an issue with the JLT that requires a lengthy closure. Absolutely ridiculous that the JLT carries such volumes with absolutely no redundancy at all.

I'll 100% agree on all of that yep.
No funding other than for minimal "sweat the asset" efforts.

There's currently no plan for agri vehicles, L-plates and HGV's. The Southern Distributor road would be a solution but there's no funding for this.

I think pedestrians and cyclists could be facilitated extraordinarily cheaply as there's space parallel to most of the E-W alignment and a disused railway line at Togher. But again no funding for this.

TheChizler

marno21 wrote: »

I have seen two tractors on the N40, both westbound between 5pm and 6pm in the last few weeks. One was on the Douglas flyover which would cause gridlock were there to be an accident.

Did they have their top speed of less than 50 km/h printed on them?

Padraig Mor

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

So yeah, that's a ridiculous idea, that it would be "for safety".

Large speed differentials are inherently unsafe - whether that be a slow moving vehicle on a road where other traffic is travelling considerably faster, or the reverse (as reference for the latter, the motorcyclist killed a couple of years ago while racing a car on the road during the day). Unfortunately the only proposals from the anti car brigade on this thread have amounted to 'ban cars from the road', 'fine speeding cars' and 'build another road for slower traffic [i.e. cyclists]' ignoring the fact that the road was constructed to move large volumes of traffic at high speed. It's funny - I distinctly remember a thread some years ago in Motors regarding a cyclist on the middle lane of the section between Kinsale Rd and Wilton on a dark rainy night at rush hour - incredibly dangerous behaviour - and the gang who arrived from the Cycling forum screaming and shouting that it was safe and he was legally entitled to be there and anyone who had a problem with it was some kind of speeding lunatic.

marno21 wrote: »

I have seen two tractors on the N40, both westbound between 5pm and 6pm in the last few weeks. One was on the Douglas flyover which would cause gridlock were there to be an accident.

Unfortunately, M designation will not preclude tractors (although it should). Personally, I don't see naming it as a motorway making much difference at all until the Dunkettle interchange is complete, and even then any benefits are aspirational at best.

hans aus dtschl

Did you read the thread at all yourself Padraig?