Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

M8 motorway (general thread)

Options
13567…38

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Reenascreena
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭Reenascreena


    turgon wrote: »
    I live near Ballincollig. My boy-racer friends will be delighted.

    They could not and would not upgrade the South Ring/Ballincollig Bypass to Motorway standards because of the restrictions involved. IMO, It would be unfair on slow motorists/ L-drivers as by its nature it is a ring road, which changes the matter considerably. People should not be forced to add 20 minutes to their journey by having to drive through the city.

    It's a Cork County Council order, it doesn't affect roads in the city jurisdiction. It covers the Ballincollig Bypass from the Bandon Roundabout to Ovens.
    It will not be a motorway, just an increased speed limit. It was passed by councillors last Monday. Will probably happen sometime next year.


  • Options
    #63
    cantalach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,924 ✭✭✭cantalach


    Reenascreena wrote: »
    It's a Cork County Council order, it doesn't affect roads in the city jurisdiction. It covers the Ballincollig Bypass from the Bandon Roundabout to Ovens.
    It will not be a motorway, just an increased speed limit. It was passed by councillors last Monday. Will probably happen sometime next year.

    So long as the road remains legally usable by pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and slow moving vehicles, it would be insanity to increase the limit to 120 km/h. It would clearly be unwise for such classes of road user to continue using the road post-increase, but they would be quite within their rights. And remember that a motorist doing 120 km/h who takes out a cyclist riding legally along the left hand side of the slow lane would definitely come off worse legally speaking for failing to drive with due care and consideration for other road users and conditions.

    And incidentally, any attempt to restrict the classes of road user in the absence of a motorway order would be of questionable legality. The legality of such restrictions in the Jack Lynch tunnel has never been tested to the best of my knowledge.


  • Options
    #64
    Reenascreena
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭Reenascreena


    cantalach wrote: »
    So long as the road remains legally usable by pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and slow moving vehicles, it would be insanity to increase the limit to 120 km/h. It would clearly be unwise for such classes of road user to continue using the road post-increase, but they would be quite within their rights. And remember that a motorist doing 120 km/h who takes out a cyclist riding legally along the left hand side of the slow lane would definitely come off worse legally speaking for failing to drive with due care and consideration for other road users and conditions.

    And incidentally, any attempt to restrict the classes of road user in the absence of a motorway order would be of questionable legality. The legality of such restrictions in the Jack Lynch tunnel has never been tested to the best of my knowledge.[/quote

    It has already been passed. I was at the council meeting. For what it's worth I don't think cyclists should be allowed on such roads anyway.


  • Options
    #65
    Nuttzz
    Registered Users Posts: 3,771 ✭✭✭Nuttzz


    cantalach wrote: »
    So long as the road remains legally usable by pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and slow moving vehicles, it would be insanity to increase the limit to 120 km/h. It would clearly be unwise for such classes of road user to continue using the road post-increase, but they would be quite within their rights. And remember that a motorist doing 120 km/h who takes out a cyclist riding legally along the left hand side of the slow lane would definitely come off worse legally speaking for failing to drive with due care and consideration for other road users and conditions.

    The n2 has been 120 without much issue


  • Options
    #66
    cantalach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,924 ✭✭✭cantalach


    Reenascreena wrote: »
    It has already been passed. I was at the council meeting. For what it's worth I don't think cyclists should be allowed on such roads anyway.

    I would tend to agree with you but, with respect, you're missing my point. Whether or not cyclists should be allowed to use such roads is irrelevant. The fact is that they are allowed to use such roads. A HQDC such as the Ballincollig Bypass is no different from a legal perspective to a quiet country lane - they are unrestricted non-motorway roads. As such, drivers have a legal obligation to be cognisant of non-motorised slow moving users (including skittish horses, children on bicycles, etc.). Failing to do so will land them in a lot of trouble in the event of a serious injury or fatality.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    mackerski
    Registered Users Posts: 2,277 ✭✭✭mackerski


    cantalach wrote: »
    So long as the road remains legally usable by pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and slow moving vehicles, it would be insanity to increase the limit to 120 km/h.

    I really don't buy into this view. The UK has a general 112 limit on dual carriageways, even ones with no usage restrictions, no hard shoulders and priority junctions. Germany doesn't even have a general limit on duallers, though a posted 120 limit is usual.

    I wouldn't much fancy my chances as a pedestrian, cyclist or horse rider against a driver doing 100km/h, so it's clear that the limit isn't set with regard to damage limitation of actual collisions. If it's safe to do 100 on an S1 it's certainly safe to do 120 on a D2HQ.


  • Options
    #68
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Lads, this thread is about the M8 upgrades. Can you move this discuission somewhere else?


  • Options
    #69
    Reenascreena
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭Reenascreena


    Furet wrote: »
    Lads, this thread is about the M8 upgrades. Can you move this discuission somewhere else?

    The N8 from Glanmire to Watergrasshill will also see its limit upped to 120. As I say these bylaws have been passed and debating the rights or wrongs wont change that the decisions have already been made.


  • Options
    #70
    Chris_533976
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Chris_533976


    Ive heard rumours they're going for motorway reclassification on the N8 to Watergrasshill in the next round of redesignations.

    Lets hope they submit everything that they're giving the 120 limit to.


  • Options
    #71
    Steviemak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 430 ✭✭Steviemak


    cantalach - I think you need to relax here. The Ballincollig bypass is as good a road as you get in this country and is of a much higher standard than the rest of the south link. I wouldn't walk or cycle over the flyover at Douglas with its lack of hard shoulder - would you?

    The N1 and N2 are built to a similar standard as the Ballincollig by pass and both have a speed limit of 120K with out incident and have safety features surpassing anything on S1 roads.

    Cycle or walk the N22 from Macroom to Ballyvourney some day and compare the experience!!

    Furet - I agree. But I just had to make that point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Lennoxschips
    Registered Users Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭Lennoxschips


    if anything, the cork south ring is a candidate for a reduction to 90 or 80 km/hr. this from a environmental point of view, to reduce noise pollution and emissions, seeing as parts of the south ring cut right through residential areas.


  • Options
    #73
    larryone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭larryone


    To return to being on-topic:

    The newly sections that were opened up are great. I do the (M/N)(7/8) alot.
    I've been driving this route since mid-late '06, the differences between then and now are huge.
    The current road between Fermoy and Michelstown isn't that bad, there are a fair few overtaking opertunities on it.
    Michelstown is sometimes easier to go through than around tho, the current by-pass goes out a bit too far.
    Can't wait till Cashel-Cullahil opens and we get motorway status on the lot of it, it'll make the journey much easier, but I always get the cheapest diesel in the country in urlingford... will have to go fuel shopping elsewhere. Small price to pay for the time saving that'll be made.

    However. Durrow and Abbeyliex and the roads on this section will have to be put up with till 2010 =0(. I dread hitting the queue at Abbeyliex. Sometimes I wonder if it'd be easier to bypass it on the back roads...


  • Options
    #74
    invincibleirish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,219 ✭✭✭invincibleirish


    larryone wrote: »
    To return to being on-topic:

    The current road between Fermoy and Michelstown isn't that bad, there are a fair few overtaking opertunities on it.

    That there is, to be nit picky this section really didnt have to be replaced at the same time as the rest of N8. I would have had no problem having one gap in the M8 if it meant the money spent on Fermoy/Mitchelstown could have been spent
    on something more urgent like oh i dont know the SRR upgrades at Sarsfield & Bandon or even replacing the part of the dirt track that is the N20.

    When the M8 is complete traffic is just going to get worse on the SRR.


  • Options
    #75
    marmurr1916
    Registered Users Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭marmurr1916


    invincibleirish wrote: »
    That there is, to be nit picky this section really didnt have to be replaced at the same time as the rest of N8. I would have had no problem having one gap in the M8 if it meant the money spent on Fermoy/Mitchelstown could have been spent
    on something more urgent like oh i dont know the SRR upgrades at Sarsfield & Bandon or even replacing the part of the dirt track that is the N20.

    When the M8 is complete traffic is just going to get worse on the SRR.

    There wouldn't have been any point in leaving a gap since it would only have to be closed later at greater expense.

    It wouldn't take too much to upgrade the N20 between Charleville and the start of the Croom bypass to a decent single-carriageway standard and the section between New Twopothouse and Buttevant should be done too.

    That bit of road is dangerous and needs to be fixed asap even if it gets downgraded to a regional road after the M20 is finished.


  • Options
    #76
    invincibleirish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,219 ✭✭✭invincibleirish


    marmurr1916 wrote: »
    There wouldn't have been any point in leaving a gap since it would only have to be closed later at greater expense.

    As opposed to the costs that are incurred in both the congestion that the SRR Roundabouts & N20 cause now and the expense when/if they are constructed and knock on effects of traffic during their construction period.

    As ive said im nit picking but building this section was a political priority not a needs based one, the money could be better spent elsewhere.


  • Options
    #77
    E92
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,147 ✭✭✭E92


    invincibleirish wrote: »
    As ive said im nit picking but building this section was a political priority not a needs based one, the money could be better spent elsewhere.

    It makes no sense to build continuous motorway all the way from Dublin to Cork but leave a 10 mile single carriageway between Fermoy and Mitchelstown alone.

    It is also one of the most dangerous roads in the country, so I for one am damn glad that there will be a Motorway filling the current 10 mile gap from next year.
    Lennoxschips wrote: »
    if anything, the cork south ring is a candidate for a reduction to 90 or 80 km/hr. this from a environmental point of view, to reduce noise pollution and emissions, seeing as parts of the south ring cut right through residential areas.

    The opportunities for travelling at 80 let alone 90 km/h are so rare on the South Ring I fail to see what this would achieve other than giving the anti car/pc/left wing nutter/greenie brigade some sort of symbolic gesture to inflict misery on the car user(which of course they love as is evident by some of the arguments made by people who want blanket speed limits on German Autobahns).

    In any event trying to justify a mere 80 or 90 km/h on a dual carriageway when it is perfectly legal to do 100 km/h on some single carriageways with no hard shoulder is using seriously funny logic at best.


  • Options
    #78
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Cashel to Cullahill Scheme -- cantilever arms were erected along the route last week. All sections now have tar, though by no means the final coat. An opening before December 2008 looks extremely likely -- maybe even late October.

    Mitchelstown to Fermoy -- the median foundation has been erected along almost the entire length of the scheme. No tar down yet, however.


  • Options
    #79
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Ok...

    Green signage has been replaced with blue signage along most of the Cashel to Cahir stretch of the Cashel to Mitchelstown scheme which, as you know, opened last July. Blue signage is also replacing the green signage along the length of the Cashel Bypass tomorrow and next week from what I can see.

    I also took many photos today of both Cashel to Cullahill and Mitchelstown to Fermoy. Cashel to Cullahill is actually complete between Urlingford and Turnpike -- lines, cats eyes in place. I hadn't expected this to be done, but there you go.

    Mitchelstown to Fermoy photos first...


  • Options
    #80
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Cashel to Cullahill photos...


  • Options
    #81
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    And some more...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Final few...


  • Options
    #83
    darkman2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,633 ✭✭✭darkman2


    Thanks for the pics! Lookin good...


  • Options
    #84
    bill_ashmount
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,047 ✭✭✭bill_ashmount


    Looks great


  • Options
    #85
    bawn79
    Registered Users Posts: 419 ✭✭bawn79


    How far in advance did people hear that the section from the end of the Cashel Bypass to Cahir was being opened in advance of the rest of that section?
    Im just wondering would there be any hope of some of the Cashel to Cullahill being opened early?
    Would be great to even open a bypass around Urlingford and Johnstown or something like that.


  • Options
    #86
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    I doubt they'll open any of the Cashel to Cullahill early. It looks like work is complete on most of it at this stage anyway.

    Ah... it's refreshing to think that in two months time we'll finally have 77 km of motorway between Mitchelstown and Cullahill. Parts of the old N8 between Cashel and Cullahill are horrible.

    Oh, and please... somebody remind them to take down the signs for the old N8. They 'forgot' to do that when they built the Cashel to Mitchelstown scheme so I'm hoping they'll do it this time.

    I'll probably be driving down the Cahir-Cashel straight tommorow so I may take some pictures to show you the upgrading works that are going on there. I can't wait for tractors/cyclists/pedestrians/other-annoying-things to be booted of that road and put back on the local roads where they belong.


  • Options
    #87
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I doubt they'll open any of the Cashel to Cullahill early. It looks like work is complete on most of it at this stage anyway.

    Ah... it's refreshing to think that in two months time we'll finally have 77 km of motorway between Mitchelstown and Cullahill. Parts of the old N8 between Cashel and Cullahill are horrible.

    Oh, and please... somebody remind them to take down the signs for the old N8. They 'forgot' to do that when they built the Cashel to Mitchelstown scheme so I'm hoping they'll do it this time.

    I'll probably be driving down the Cahir-Cashel straight tommorow so I may take some pictures to show you the upgrading works that are going on there. I can't wait for tractors/cyclists/pedestrians/other-annoying-things to be booted of that road and put back on the local roads where they belong.

    Agreed! Let me know if they've managed to replace any of the green signs on the Cashel Bypass with blue signs (prob won't happen til next week but you never know), and also if the green Exit 9 cantilever signs have been replaced.


  • Options
    #88
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Although this thread (and the few over in the Commuting and Transport forum) remains probably the best place in Ireland to get information on the construction of the M8, a new page has been started on wikipedia dedicated to the motorway sections of the road. It can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_motorway_(Ireland)

    I uploaded a few of my own photos to brighten the page up, and it is looking well.


  • Options
    #89
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    That Wikipedia page was created by me a few weeks ago...

    I had a feeling you were the person that updated it!


  • Options
    #90
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    That Wikipedia page was created by me a few weeks ago...

    I had a feeling you were the person that updated it!

    :D

    Ha that's gas, good move by the way, the page was needed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    If you look at page 25 of the document linked to here: http://www.nra.ie/Publications/Servi...e,14391,en.pdf , proposed service areas for all the motorways are indicated. On the M8, one is proposed just south of Cashel (Junction 9), and another one is indeed planned for somewhere between Junctions 13 and 14 as childoforpheus said.

    The question is, will the interurbans be busy enough to justify all of these?


Advertisement