NRA have this morning advertised for engineering consultancy to design medium to long term solution to the junction!
:):)
I've mentioned this before. Maybe the person responsible for the signs isn't a car driver and has no understanding of the need for signs which give unambiguous information in good time.
Maybe he/she just coasts along cycle lanes on a pushbike.
I haven’t driven it yet but passing on the air coach, the signage at the southernmost dumbbell looks so confusing. There are signs pointing this lane for westbound that then disappear
Well, in that case I suppose I we should get a large tax discount. We get absolutely crap public services and abysmal public transport.
If I'm being 'punished' by faceless bureaucrats because NIMBYism of local councillors, I will be voting against all the government TDs next time a general election comes up.
There's something seriously lacking with the signage on the 'dumbbell roundabouts' for City Centre / Cork. I have come in to Cork late in the evening / early AM several times this week and EVERY time there's been a car / camper van looking totally baffled stopping to figure out the signs etc.
I also know several people who've ended up in the the tunnel instead of on the N8 into the city centre down the Lower Glanmire Road.
The signage is fine until you exit the N40 and then the local signage on the overpasses and roundabouts is just inadequate.
in my mind, TII should be held liable for accidents where drivers in the left lane try to take the Dublin slip going north. The signage is completely incorrect and dangerous.
They didn’t actually acknowledge the Dublin sign, just the N25 signs at Little Island. They said it’s too far for drivers to be located into the lanes that align with the N8, and that the Cork part of the sign refers to the entire city (e.g. Douglas, Ballypheane, etc). I’m not too sure what they meant by that when that’s what Westbound is for
Wait till 1 of them get cut across from a car in the left lane realising they've to make the Dublin exit
They responded saying essentially the signage is working and will stay as is, including the Cork/City Centre/Limerick situation at Little Island
Currently, over 20% of households in Cork City have no car. In a low-density environment (we've already agreed that). With no light rail, poor bus infrastructure, very poor cycle infrastructure, and mediocre pedestrian infrastructure.
I guess they don't have jobs in Little Island, family in Glanmire, enjoy open water swimming etc (I'm obviously being facetious by saying this). But honestly I don't understand whether you're deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying about cross-city traffic, or just that I haven't explained myself properly. There WILL be car access to the South Docklands urban area. There's no question about this. It just must not be the dominant mode. Putting in a new bridge which will primarily facilitate cars (because buses and light rail will go via Kent) will therefore be a retrograde step. If we make sustainable transport easier than car-based transport then people will use it as their preferred mode. We need to get things TO the city not THROUGH the city, and that Eastern Gateway bridge looks like a bad idea to me.
So my opinion is that I'd prefer to connect cars south of the river to the N27, connect cars North of the river to the N8 and N20, basically. Whereas if we connect the N8 at Tivoli across the river to the Southside, I'm telling you now straight off that I'll use it myself to get in and out of the city. It'll encourage me to drive in.
One neighbourhood being "high density" doesn't enable car-free though. You'll have people in there with jobs in Little Island, family in Glanmire, GAA clubs in Midleton, enjoy their open water swimming, all who will need cars at other times of their lives. Building housing for 25,000 people and expecting them to live without cars is fanciful. The most active users (I include myself who cycles 45 mns to work), also need a car to survive life.
If you're expecting 25,000 people to move into that area and live withing 2km, and rely on bikes and public transport for other journeys, that sounds setup to fail
I'm in Spain at the moment and their cities are thriving centers of accommodation with small shops and restaurants the support the residents daily needs. All the large retail outlets, commercial and industrial zones are around the outside of the cities.
Public transport is abundant and cheap, €1 or €1.20 wherever you need to go.
It looks like we got it arseways back in the '70s and afterwards when satellite dormitory towns were seen as the way forward. Instead of populating our cities and towns with people we populated them with large retail outlets which now have reduced our city and town centres to inhospitable areas outside of business hours.
The creation of satellite dormitory towns with insufficient public transport interconnectivity have spawned the need for cross city car travel.
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.
Sounds fantastic but not sure how practical it is in a low density city. You'd need every apartment and office to be developed without car parking to not require car access to the area. I'd love to see it, but can't see it happening, and without new access roads it's just going to flood the current access roads
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:
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.
I think it depends what you mena by "city centre". To me that means keeping cars out of the central island, and this bridge would do that. People travelling from Mayfield to Turners Cross for example, this takes cars around the central island and city hall area.
Yes infrastructure has a lifespan. It's usually around a century. The JLT has been open 25 years. It may be over capacity, but it's nowhere near end of life.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
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 is a shame that one cannot even mention something said in a conversation now without links to it online.
Neverlone being ridiculed for it.
I have no doubt the tunnel like most infrastructures as it, has an expected life span
A poster mentioned earlier the tunnel appears to be closing more often, I have to apologise to you all, you have become so annoyed by my sheer arrogance to mention something I was told during a conversation by someone in the know.
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.
The Luas bridge will probably remain dead or dormant for a long time, as the councillors apparently kept asking the NTA and Luas teams to factor cars in the Luas plans, and the NTA and Luas teams did the sensible thing and walked away from the Cork Luas project.
That leaves the Eastern Gateway Bridge, which the Council is adamant that they are progressing and the Bus Connects teams are factoring it into their route designs. HOWEVER, word has it that a new part 8 is landing at Tivoli skew bridge in the next week or so…which may or may not reference the Eastern Gateway Bridge - we will see!
Frankly, I hope the Eastern Gateway Bridge is delayed as long as possible, until the Council has the right political environment to make it sustainable transport only. As someone who generally approaches the city from the East, I can tell you I'd drive that bridge almost every time to get into the city faster, and with all bus routes now through the train station (great!), it'd primarily facilitate unsustainable getting right into the city centre. Frankly I'd rather no bridge rather than what they're proposing (that's speaking as someone who would benefit from it!). What they need is sustainable downstream crossings: another car bridge in/at the city seems like a retrograde step: we don't particularly want cars in the city centre, so why would we go to such lengths to facilitate them? Let them use the tunnel or one of the other bridges - it'll be no slower than public transport!
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.
A public transport and pedestrian bridge is supposed to form part of the Luas across from Kent station to the south docks but I'd say there's more chance of pigs flying than those projects going ahead any time in the next few decades.
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?
You must not have seen the words " long term plan "
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.
Wouldn't believe a word of it. It's not mentioned in any plan anywhere that I know of, and we've just spent €200m+ on a new interchange there that is designed around the tunnel and is not compatible with a bridge.
I heard that from someone in the City Council
Is there? What plan?
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.
:):)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1aba361f5b77a8017be035a0d4fc285.svg)
