M40 motorway redesignation and demand management system [works ongoing]

BikeRacer wrote:

I go up the on ramp to the roundabout and down the other side. No crossing needed.

Yea, of course you do!

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Elaborate for me: how would you get out your door if you lived on the N25 or the N18?
My point is that we have - in the past, thankfully - put in DC's where alternate routes are not available for some people. This was a mistake. We don't do that any more (thankfully!) but we need to deal with the mistakes we made.

The N40 does not have houses directly on it. But some sections between Douglas and Wilton have no viable alternate route. This is the problem with in-line upgrades. We can improve the junctions all we want and bring it up to HQDC standard, but without providing a secondary route we'e at nothing IMO.

The fact that HQDC is a really high standard of road doesn't fix the lack of alternate routes for us. You'll rarely tractors on the M8, because the old N8 is available for them.

But slapping an "M" status on the road isn't the answer: we should do that when we make available the alternate routes. Again, learners and cyclists, it's not so hard to accommodate them IMO. But speaking with my cyclist hat on, I can tell you that there's been no effort towards that whatsoever. I'm not a learner any more, but I wouldn't like to get to Wilton from Douglas via town, tbh. So yeah, that's my only point.

No part of the N40 was an in-line upgrade. It was wholly a new route. People managed to get between Douglas and Wilton before the SRR. I can’t see what they cannot now.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Was it a whole new upgrade between Douglas village and KRR? Apologies if I'm mistaken.
Beside that point, people didn't really go between Douglas and Wilton before the SRR. I remember making that journey a few times and it was painfully slow, particularly Sarsfield road. It just wasn't really a thing.
We allowed a lot of house building around the N40, based on the idea that they'd use it for short distance commuting. Nobody realised that it was a bad idea at the time.

I don't know if there's any way to get those short-distance commuters off the N40 now. A whole dependency has built up around it.

Pre SRR, you wouldn’t have used the Sarsfield Road. You would have used the South Douglas Road and gone through Togher and Glasheen,

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Was it a whole new upgrade between Douglas village and KRR? Apologies if I'm mistaken.

It wasn’t an upgrade of any sort. It was a brand new green field route.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Beside that point, people didn't really go between Douglas and Wilton before the SRR.

For real ?

• Cork RTC (now CIT) opened in 1973
• The Wilton Hilton (now CUH) opened in 1978
• Wilton Shopping Centre opened in 1979
• Wilton was the primary access to the Bandon Road which carried all West Cork traffic
• etc but that enough......

All long before the SRR section from Douglas to KRR

Traffic back then was “different”.

You didn’t have the N40 to help with East - west movements.

On the other hand, back then South - North movements on the south side worked much better as you didn’t have the N40 acting as a barrier to traffic.

You also didn’t have traffic from the tunnel. Town was quite congested though as it had to facilitate a lot more traffic movements.

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Town was quite congested though as it had to facilitate a lot more traffic movements.

I only remember the route between Douglas and Wilton as you refresh my memory: we actually got to Wilton from Frankfield via Western Road, believe it or not! I remember when the N40 opened and it was absolutely mind blowing for me that we could get to Wilton so quickly.

I think the dream scenario would be removal of motorised "through" traffic from the city centre where possible. Routing some through traffic via the city would be a backwards step from my opinion.

In terms of re-designating M40, cycling need not be a big issue, as it could partially be re-routed on existing roads. If there was progress on the old railway line it wouldn't be an issue. A quality solution is within reach. For big machinery and learners, I think the re-designation is probably a pointless exercise or a retrograde step, because if the aim is to remove all slow vehicles, it can't succeed on its own.

If people don't see city centre traffic or encouraging cycling as important discussions, then I fully understand that the re-designation seems like an open-and-shut exercise, and that my points above would possibly be unfathomable/non-issues.

Unfortunately for me, I do care about city centre traffic and encouraging cycling!

marno21 wrote: »

The Cork Southern Distributor Road as proposed in CMATS will be a huge help here.

Road network planning needs to be rethought. We are creating huge impenetrable blocks on the outskirts of cities and stick with Victorian era road layouts.

There is little traffic in pre 1970s suburbs as they were built in a grid layout. I’m not saying reverting to a grid layout but cut down on block sizes and stop huge swathes of traffic being dependent on over trafficked arteries.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Yes I agree.
But do we really want them driving these alternative routes for their commute? I'm not sure that we would want that.

In a dream scenario I'd prefer the N40/M40 to be for long-distance traffic, and what the Dutch did with the Maastricht A2 would be one viable setup.
We don't have the proverbial fortune that they spent though. Plus there's low-hanging fruit all over the place in terms of encouraging sustainable traffic, to get the N40/M40 AADT down first.

Basically it's time to start tackling the short distance commuter drivers (including me) with a bit more urgency.

The vast majority of motorised road users can use a motorway. Agricultural vehicles and learner drivers (who should only be driving to learn and prepare for their tests anyway) are few. The inner distributor roads proposed in CMATS would help by providing other alternative routes, but the N40 was a greenfield route so there is no issue with alternative routes today - the legal requirement for same is provided by the streets and roads that existed previously.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

What you're saying makes sense, but it is also a bit beside the point. What is the purpose of the redesignation? I would say to try to remove slower traffic from the N40/M40.

Will the project "work"?
Either yes, in which case we're talking about successfully diverting slow-moving heavy machinery through a city centre, which would be a negative consequence.
Or no, in which case we're talking about a waste of time/effort.
Or worst (which is my point): we're talking about divert some heavy traffic through town and still having slow traffic on the N40/M40. Which would be a waste of time/effort with a negative consequence.

The point is that the N40 is no place for slow moving vehicles - mixing fast and slow traffic not only reduces the capacity of the road but creates danger. And it does not take much to cause a slowdown or danger - a few cyclists in all-black gear can create serious danger on the Douglas flyover, or a few tractors a day could cause serious problems by slowing the driving lane down to 40kph among very heavy traffic expecting to be able to proceed at 100kph.

Is it ideal that a small amount of motoristed traffic from the N40 would be routed back onto Cork streets? Of course not, but the N40 is effectively an expressway and I doubt that less than 97+% of its traffic is fully licensed drivers in cars, trucks and buses.

The game changer (in terms of roads, the trams and suburban rail electrification are also needed in Cork IMHO) are the Northern and Southern inner circular roads proposed by the City council (I think it was the City council, not the county). Those would the city council to ban all through traffic from inner streets within the proposed circular roads.

Even if the amount of slowdown/danger created by non-Motorway capable traffic is not serious, properly clarifying the purpose of the N40 (which motorway designation would do) is not a "wasted effort".

So, there are two choices then to make the N40 safer:

1) Ban all cars, buses and lorries so that it's only usable by pedestrians and cyclists.
2) Declare it motorway.

Which seems more reasonable?

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I firstly apologise, because I haven't read the previous two posts, but I don't think the ban is actually necessary. It might be desirable for sure, but the many crashes happening on the N40 don't appear to be resulting from slow moving traffic.
I think what's necessary is for the N40 to be a protected long-distance route (ideally M status) and that local traffic and slow traffic uses a local route instead. And that the M status road should - unfortunately - be tolled.
Otherwise the creation of a brand new "outer" M status road, but I wouldn't be in favour of that and can't imagine what the route would be.

Basically I'm saying there's a third way: build the local distributor road and simultaneously the N40 to motorway status. One without the other is deckchairs on the titanic stuff.

I think this thread is officially gone into crazy town when we have people seriously suggesting that cars, buses and trucks should not be on the N40. Without trucks, who is going to deliver your muesli? How will the Birkenstock shops be supplied?

From my experience on the N40, the vast, vast, super-majority of traffic on it is motor vehicles - if not all - and I presumed most all operated by fully licensed drivers. I do not remember encountering ninja cyclists with no lights or hi-vis on the Douglas flyover, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are there. I also did not recall seeing old people in those power-scooter mobility aids, people moving animals from farm-to-farm, or the other types of vehicles referred to previously.

In terms of motor vehicles, I'd expect only a small number of tractors to be affected by re-designation and there can't be many of those. There might also be a few learner motorcycle riders, again, no big deal. (Motorcyclists can drive unaccompanied on learner permits, but permit holders must be accompanied in a car, bus, lorry or anything like that).

One other thing I find bizarre is the contrast between the proposals - redesgnation of the N40 now vs. redesignation later with tolls! So, putting a few tractors, cyclists, power chairs off the N40 now would be absurd, according to some, but tolling an M40 later on would grand!

You do realise that the law requires a tolled route to have a toll free alternative, and that tolling any route is a guarantee of large scale toll avoidance? Why on Earth would you toll the M40 and guarantee large volumes of traffic on the side route? If you want the city streets and maybe a new distributor road to resemble the R148 between Kilcock and Kinnegad (M4-toll alternate route) then tolling the M/N40 is by far the best way of doing so.

SeanW wrote: »

I think this thread is officially gone into crazy town when we have people seriously suggesting that cars, buses and trucks should not be on the N40. Without trucks, who is going to deliver your muesli? How will the Birkenstock shops be supplied?

But I didn't suggest that? Who suggested that? I thought that was you yourself that put forward that argument, and now are apparently arguing against it?

SeanW wrote: »

no-one in their right mind would suggest building a new road for 3 tractors and <10 learner motorcycle riders per day, which I suspect is the limit of motorised, non-motorway suitable traffic on the N40.

It's actually a lot more frequent than you state above.
Unfortunately.
Which is what prompted the whole TII/NRA action in the first place, when you think about it.

SeanW wrote: »

I do not remember encountering ninja cyclists with no lights or hi-vis on the Douglas flyover, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are there. I also did not recall seeing [] people moving animals from farm-to-farm, or the other types of vehicles referred to previously.

Sorry just reading the rest of this now.
Sadly, I've seen all of the above.
Luckily no mobility scoots....that I've seen.

SeanW wrote: »

One other thing I find bizarre is the contrast between the proposals - redesgnation of the N40 now vs. redesignation later with tolls! So, putting a few tractors, cyclists, power chairs off the N40 now would be absurd, according to some, but tolling an M40 later on would grand!

You do realise that the law requires a tolled route to have a toll free alternative, and that tolling any route is a guarantee of large scale toll avoidance? Why on Earth would you toll the M40 and guarantee large volumes of traffic on the side route? If you want the city streets and maybe a new distributor road to resemble the R148 between Kilcock and Kinnegad (M4-toll alternate route) then tolling the M/N40 is by far the best way of doing so.

I'm actually not sure what you're suggesting, and think we could be at cross-purposes: I'm saying throughout that there needs to be a local distributor road, and THEN an M status.
And only potentially a toll after that.
I fully agree that a toll now would probably not work: that seems logical.

My contention isn't with the M status itself, I will not be affected. I just think it's pointless at best and counterproductive at worst without a local distributor road.
I repeat: I will not be affected. I've actually no skin in the game.

But the whole exercise feels like a window-dressing exercise to pretend they're doing something about the glaring lack of infrastructure investment in the Cork area.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

But I didn't suggest that? Who suggested that? I thought that was you yourself that put forward that argument, and now are apparently arguing against it?

Carawaystick suggested that the mixing of fast and slow traffic was less of an issue than the presence of motor vehicles.

See Carawaystick's post which was in reply to the point that I made that the N40 does this mixing at present. Seems to be a clear suggestion that banning motorised traffic from the N40 would be more reasonable than redesignating it motorway. Hence my comments about birkenstock and mueseli.

Carawaystick wrote: »

The danger is caused by the people using mechanically propelled vehicles. If there were only bikes and people walking on the N40, there would be no danger.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Sorry just reading the rest of this now.
Sadly, I've seen all of the above.
Luckily no mobility scoots....that I've seen.




I'm actually not sure what you're suggesting, and think we could be at cross-purposes: I'm saying throughout that there needs to be a local distributor road, and THEN an M status.
And only potentially a toll after that.
I fully agree that a toll now would probably not work: that seems logical.

My contention isn't with the M status itself, I will not be affected. I just think it's pointless at best and counterproductive at worst without a local distributor road.
I repeat: I will not be affected. I've actually no skin in the game.

But the whole exercise feels like a window-dressing exercise to pretend they're doing something about the glaring lack of infrastructure investment in the Cork area.

I agree that investment in infrastructure in Cork has been very poor. Unfortunately that issue is not limited to Cork - the same nonsense is going on in Dublin with the Metro Link (thanks Eamon Ryan you gob****e for getting that cut in half :mad:) and the DART Underground, which should have been ready 10 years ago, not even on the table. Plus a list of road projects needed nationwide that at current rates will take over a century to complete.

My view is that the transport infrastructure that is necessary should be provided, that there should be a clear distinction between streets and roads, including the designation of the latter as motorways where appropriate, and that the N40 is one such case.

Admittedly I haven't been to Cork in some years, but I recall the South Ring being mostly cars with some trucks and buses - what one would expect on an Expressway. As such, I view it's designation as motorway as a positive step improving its core function, independent of anything else as the legal preliminaries are mostly in place (alternative access would be required for Vernon Mount but that's all that's missing).

I'm also against tolling as a general rule, but doubly so in the case of town/city bypasses, which the N40 effectively is.

Admittedly though my information is not extensive - does anyone have a detailed breakdown of traffic on the N40? In particular, how much of the motorised traffic on it would be banned from a motorway? My suspicion is that the amount of this traffic is extremely limited.

marno21 wrote: »

98970

That is ninety eight thousand, nine hundred and seventy.

Put another way, a hairs breath under ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND VEHICLE movements per day

That volume is the fair square into the motorway category, and an order of magnitude or two above the design capacity of the N40.

I’ll leave it to others to nit pick their way through the other numbers using them to justify all sorts of theoretical solutions. For me this iis conclusive.

marno21 wrote: »

98970 is beyond mad for a city of Cork's size

Yes, though it’s easily explained by the absence of the Northern section of the N40 and local distributor roads, the local council’s policy of placing traffic magnets at every junction, and a dearth of useful public transport and rail freight options.

marno21 wrote: »

It's important to remember that that section of the N40 is also less than 30 years old!

Not just is it less than 30 years old, but it has had two capacity upgrades since it was opened to traffic.

All the above posts seem reasonable and straightforward to me. I'm not disagreeing the need for an M-status road. I'm not even disagreeing that the N40 should be it. I'm just saying that slapping an "M" (with all of the trappings) right on the existing N40 is a paperwork exercise at best without another viable route.

As far as I can see, it's mostly the same issue that's affecting the M50: local short-distance commuters are a significant portion of the traffic. So, something needs to get the local short-distance commuters off it.
An M40 north is also badly needed.
I personally think that a Southern distributor is also badly needed, but we can argue that one elsewhere.
Public transport is badly needed.
Proper cycling/walking infrastructure is almost non-existent.

But banning some tiny fraction of slow-moving traffic and sending it through town? meh

SeanW wrote: »

Carawaystick suggested that the mixing of fast and slow traffic was less of an issue than the presence of motor vehicles.

See Carawaystick's post which was in reply to the point that I made that the N40 does this mixing at present. Seems to be a clear suggestion that banning motorised traffic from the N40 would be more reasonable than redesignating it motorway. Hence my comments about birkenstock and mueseli.

OK. I understand now, thanks, and I'll bow out of that discussion.

SeanW wrote: »

I agree that investment in infrastructure in Cork has been very poor. Unfortunately that issue is not limited to Cork - the same nonsense is going on in Dublin with the Metro Link (thanks Eamon Ryan you gob****e for getting that cut in half :mad:) and the DART Underground, which should have been ready 10 years ago, not even on the table. Plus a list of road projects needed nationwide that at current rates will take over a century to complete.

My view is that the transport infrastructure that is necessary should be provided, that there should be a clear distinction between streets and roads, including the designation of the latter as motorways where appropriate, and that the N40 is one such case.

Agreed on all of this, other than to complain about all of the politicians as being equally useless.

SeanW wrote: »

Admittedly I haven't been to Cork in some years, but I recall the South Ring being mostly cars with some trucks and buses - what one would expect on an Expressway. As such, I view it's designation as motorway as a positive step improving its core function, independent of anything else as the legal preliminaries are mostly in place (alternative access would be required for Vernon Mount but that's all that's missing).


I'm also against tolling as a general rule, but doubly so in the case of town/city bypasses, which the N40 effectively is.

Admittedly though my information is not extensive - does anyone have a detailed breakdown of traffic on the N40? In particular, how much of the motorised traffic on it would be banned from a motorway? My suspicion is that the amount of this traffic is extremely limited.

This is exactly the problem: it's not really expressway now and doesn't function as such, it's unfortunately fallen into the "Local Distributor" road category for a significant number of users, perhaps even the majority of users.

It's in the exact same situation as the A2 was in Maastricht, and needs a similar solution IMO, the segregation of local and long-distance traffic. We don't have that kind of money, though. Or the political will, seemingly.