Cork Trucker wrote: » As pointed out, there is a difference in terms of what is allowed on a HQDC and what isn't allowed on a motorway. Plus in some instances a reduced speed limit, The Ballincollig bypass being the one rarity where the speed limit is 120kph despite not being a motorway.
Shedite27 wrote: » Is there any feasibility or anything done on the Waterford-Mitchelstown section of that? Is there any plans at all for this or a direct Cork-Waterford route?
Cookiemunster wrote: » There is no physical difference between a HQDC and a motorway other than the colour of the signs. And there shouldn't be any rest/parking areas on a motorway. Most of the ones that are there today are on roads that were designed as HQDC and then redesignated.
Isambard wrote: » and the road out almost as far as Midleton. Cork is quite enlightened re speed limits, there are several R roads with 100km/h limits.
niloc1951 wrote: » There are rest/parking areas on motorways throughout Europe so I don't follow your point that there shouldn't be any rest/parking areas on a motorway. The examples on the M8 are treacherously dangerous, they have neither entry nor exit lanes to facilitate save exit from the mainline or re-entry to it. If those roads are redesignated HQDC's then they shouldn't have motorway speed limits if they weren't designed and buit to motorway standard first day. On the other side if the coin there is the N25 dual carriageway with a motorway speed limit but available to L drivers and slow moving agricultural and construction machinery of all sorts. And let's not get started on the proliferation of LILO junctions designed to facilitate entry on motorways/dual carriageways in the wrong direction which have lead to so many deaths and serious injuries.. Shambles comes to mind. Rant over.
SeanW wrote: » It should be pointed out that this is a Green Party tactic - they did the same thing to kill the Southern Metro in Dublin. They claim to be all about public transport and said they wanted a whole range of fantasy Metros and all sort of things ... that it just so happened wouldn't happen for ages even if we started them now ... just not a Green line upgrade because ... reasons. Now we're expected to believe that the party of eco-extremism that wants little/no spending on roads is looking for a "regional motorway network" that just happens not to include the M20? Colour me skeptical, but I don't believe them, and I hope the people in Cork are wise enough to see through this nonsense.
Shedite27 wrote: » Tell that to the L plate drivers, farm drivers etc
Shedite27 wrote: » Couldn't give a hoots about the politics of it to be fair, just wondering if this Cork-Cahir-Waterford is competing against a Cork-Dungarvan-Waterford route, or whether there's only one on the table.
hans aus dtschl wrote: » This MAY be off-topic (in which case I apologise and please delete) but is there anything to be said for the planned Blarney P&R and northern interurban cycle route to be included as requirements for the M20? These could be funded separately but should go for planning simultaneously. My thinking here is: We know that the M20 corridor needs to be upgraded. Many people are calling for "no more roads" and even "no M20" for sustainability and emissions reasons. Their angle here is that we're too car-dependent. And they're right about that. Many people are calling for an M40 North to be completed as a tie-in to the M20. Their angle here is that dumping M20 traffic into Blackpool is crazy. And they're right about that. So is there anything to be said for acknowledging up-front the urgent need for these "modal shift" pieces of infrastructure to be delivered in tandem with the M20 and as per CMATS? To try to compensate for the induced demand, so to speak! And frankly, anything that takes the focus off dumping a small fraction of M20 traffic onto the M8 (at a very high monetary and social cost) is a positive thing.
Limerick74 wrote: » also a good business opportunity for any services at the P&R sites such as fuel, food, charging points etc.
steeler j wrote: » Is the link between the m8 glanmire to the new m20 diffently not going ahead?
Chris_5339762 wrote: » We are now more sure than before the the M8 Glanmire to M20 will NOT be going ahead as part of the M20 project. It will be progressed seperately, likely several years later than the M20, if that even happens itself. Awful decision.
Gunner3629 wrote: » The N25 between Carrigtwohill West Junction 4 and Dunkettle is also 120km. Having it a Motorway would be a nightmare for local farmers and L drivers though.
niloc1951 wrote: » the L3004 (old N25) is available as a parallel route to non-motorway traffic
wrote:
hans aus dtschl wrote: » I'd say the problem is with the Dunkettle interchange. Yet again, they did not consider these users in the original design and only have a brief interest in accommodating them in the new design: they won't be able to get past Dunkettle without going into Glanmire!
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Those users being farm machinery and L drivers, why should either be accommodated? Farm machinery won't be undertaking long journeys, particularly no going west of Dunkettle. L drivers are a veryssmall percentage of drivers and the status is only really intended for a short time, they should not be much of a concern.
hans aus dtschl wrote: » They might only be a small subset of users but they still need to get over the Glashaboy river, and sending them on a detour into Glanmire village isn't a workable solution due to existing congestion. There's still plenty agricultural land on both sides of the Glashaboy and L drivers are in the region of 5% of the overall or thereabouts (~120k ish people out of ~2m ish)
niloc1951 wrote: » No need to go via Glanmire, there is a connection to the JLT roundabout/interchange at the southern end of M8 where the last couple of hundred metres of it is no longer motorway status. SEE HERE
Isambard wrote: » that's what I was thinking, the link near to the old hotel?
riddlinrussell wrote: » Wouldn't this also include cyclists? Any provision looks to have been a not very serious afterthought.
