N8/N25/N40 - Dunkettle Interchange [open to traffic]

roadconstruction@ccc-site.com

Yeah, but Google Maps has always been pretty crap as a navigation app. It's usually the last to get updated any time a road opens.

If the signage was correct, this would be okay, but it's not, so it makes the problem worse.

The most important instruction is "Use right lane for Dublin". I think a two panel "All other routes | Dublin" gantry would be the clearest and safest option. Everyone else has a chance to move lanes, but Dublin traffic is kind of screwed if it emerges from the tunnel in the left lane.

Its just pure bad driving there thesedays. People forcing the merge, people tailgating in the overtaking lane. Result: crashes.

How the merge atvRathcoole on the N7 is done, it ain't rocket science

N7

https://maps.app.goo.gl/pbNuXhERCkNCtLNw8

I think it might help by forcing people to continue on the merge lane due to the barrier separating the lanes. There's still a long merge opportunity without the barrier. I'm not sure there's the same amount of room at the Bloomfield Interchange but it might help.

The issue at Bloomfield is there are 2 lanes from the N28 running parallel to and unseperated from the N40 with chaotic merging onto the N40 from both.

The 2 N28 lanes should be merged into one while separated from the N40 by a barrier, like on the N7 near Rathcoole. It is only after the emerging of the two N28 lanes should the resulting single lane be able to merge with the N40.

Only having one lane merging, a la N7, should reduce the present chaos which is resulting in the current high rate of crashes in the area.

Two separate merging lanes a couple of hundred metres apart is still one too many, considering the volume of traffic on the N40. Is it not better to merge the two on the N28 into one and have just one merge onto the N40.

I do know it’s only one lane the whole way from the roundabout at Rathcoole, I was only mentioning that location as an example to demonstrate how it is done in a better way than simply plastic bollards which don't survive for long.

Some sort of work going on there this evening

Back in 2007 I'd say it got a bit interesting.

There is a school of thought that says to make roads safe, make them feel dangerous. Maybe they were ahead of their time back in 2007!

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/to-make-roads-safe-make-them-feel-dangerous/386336/

and Mahon

Traffic on the N28 on ramp at Maryborough Hill, coming up and down the hill, which I have never seen/haven’t seen in a long time. A big problem was the second people got to the end of the ramp and onto the merge lane, they were trying to merge. No one (except me) would go to the end of the lane and seamlessly merge in. It led to a standstill as cars were braking trying to squeeze in at the start of the lane. As discussed, same happens at the merge of N28 (specifically the right hand lane) and N40. Everytime I go to the end of the lane and I get in easily without having to stop

Oh definitely, I should have made it clear I still do it safely, and yield to traffic on the mainline. I always dread driving past the J10 on ramp eastbound, same with the N27 at its junction with Mick Barry Road

Not sure what time you were at but there was an accident between Mahon and Bloomfield after 6 that slowed everything down, wonder is the mile or so between Mahon / Bloomfield / Douglas Flyover statistically the most accident prone area in the country? Certainly feels like it!

Did anyone email the Road Construction team about the signage in the scheme? And if so, did anyone get a response?

I've just spent a few minutes watching the N40 North of Tunnel camera feed.

As could be expected, at 9.15pm on a Saturday evening quite a bit of the traffic is heading for the M8. During the few minutes watching I counted six cars making the last minute dive from lane 1 across lane 2, to get to the M8.

While us locals have sussed that only lane 2 facilitates safe access to the M8 the sh1te direction signs seem to be definitely catching out the visitors.

If you drive through the tunnel on any dry day, watch out for damp patches at the deepest part of it.

It is water ingress and they are trying to keep treating it, as timeis going by it is becoming more intense.

There is a long term plan to replace the tunnel with a bridge.

I heard that from someone in the City Council

Only new bridge planned is the Tivoli to Marina one. "Gateway Bridge".

Tunnel is staying.

Hopefully the council see sense and make the gateway bridge sustainable transport only, but right now it's footpath, bike, bus, general traffic on each side, and that wide street configuration continues down centre park road.

I did and I asked where is this plan? I've never seen it in any strategic plans. CMATS makes no mention of it. Where is it mentioned?

Crossed wires, I'm talking about further downstream. From approx. Tivoli skew bridge directly to Center Park road, at around a 45 degree angle to the river. The one you're describing there hasn't been considered for car traffic thankfully.

Wherever they put the downstream bridge I hope it is built in a way to facilitate leisure traffic on the river to reach the city.

Berthing facilities in the city for boutique cruise ships, yachts and othertypes of boating activity would greatly enhance attractiveness of the public realm environment of the redeveloped old port.

What you've mentioned is fairly significant and flies in the face of all long-term strategies and publications so that makes it extremely interesting to people reading. I don't think you're being ridiculed, rather you're being quizzed for detail because it's so significant!

It's possible we're at cross-purposes. You're perhaps thinking about the current city centre environment but in the long term Centre Park road is planned to be heavily residential and offices and the plan is to put a tram through the middle of it. It is planned for Centre Park Road to be very much city centre. That's what the new bridge is intended to facilitate.

So plugging a new arterial road through that environment could be bad:

1. It would make the residential neighbourhood itself less desirable (noise, pollution, views, etc)
2. It would make walking and cycling less attractive
3. It would undermine the new tram system

The car traffic should be able to access the city, but crossing the city the way you describe should ideally be the job of either sustainable transport or the arterial road network (which isn't yet fully finished, of course!). Mayfield cars can access Turner's cross via N8/N40/N27 rather than crossing the city. It's currently faster that "external" arterial way, so why would we put in a new bridge, changing that, improving the exact drive we're trying to discourage?

I'm in favour of a bridge, just don't think allowing cars on it will work out well. And I'm reasonably confident that people won't YET accept a new bridge without cars.

But basically if we're serious about putting in high density residential and offices at Centre Park road, then that's not very compatible with putting an arterial road through there. I understand why it's being proposed (a dual carriageway into the city centre is what we've always done since the 60's) but it's not a good step for the future. Flood the area with foot, bike, bus, tram, infrastructure instead. And hopefully get the results we keep saying we aspire to.

The whole general plan for that area is high density. I'm not sure how many times I'm going to need to write that: they're hoping for a population of >25k and >20k jobs in the area. The main words they keep using in relation to it are "sustainable" and "urban centre".

Also, I fully agree that the city has not got a high enough density now, that is something that all of the people planning aspire to change.

I think you're basically proving my point that any new Eastern Gateway Bridge will be inundated with people wanting it to allow car access if they do it in the near future. What an Eastern Gateway Bridge is absolutely NOT intended to facilitate will be cross-city car journeys, but these would be the primary "winners" if it were built.