Most Motorways and HQDC are not future proofed.

mysterious

Why are Motorways and HQDC built now days look redicoulsly cheap and narrow?

No more standard steel barriers. NRA wants cheaper cheese shredder types. They appear to be just as safe. I doubt it.

Lane widths are not 3.65 but 3.5metres, the HS are also shavened a bit too.

Medians are not grass anymore, just a mere strip to separate the road, with either a cheese shredder or concrete barrier(again cheaper)

Bridges are built with a pillar on each side beside of the HS so this means no scope for adding an extra lane on the side as the median are non starters. In this country we just bulldoze it and waste money on a road that could have being built for an option of future of third lane!

Anyways It might seem like nothing to point out? but is it?

worded

If a biker has a slide on a motorway and hits the centre wire type divide, loosing an arm or leg is very likely. Thats my concern.

mysterious

worded wrote:

If a biker has a slide on a motorway and hits the centre wire type divide, loosing an arm or leg is very likely. Thats my concern.

Yeah it's mind boggling. That a barrier is allowed on these type of fast moving roads? It's looks like it would shredd anything that hits it. larger vehicles won't be really a problem. Even still the standard barriers would be more preventive in allowing cars to cross the other carriegway. The wire ones don't seem to be as effective. But that's just my opinion.

Ironic though It will take somebody on a motorbike to get seriously hurt by these barriers whether losing a limb etc. To get these off the road. NRA are allowing this cheap option built on practically every road now, and on top of that they are allowing an accident to go seriously wrong.

darkman2

I always thought those wires could slice your head off if your biker. Tremendously dangerous IMO.

bk

As for the original question, most of the motorways are actually over speced. The amount of traffic on roads like the Cork to Dublin isn't actually high enough to traditionally build a motorway, strictly speaking the amount of traffic they carry only requires a Dual Carriageway. But the government decided that while there at it they might as well make it Motorway and HQDC.

Of course the wire fencing is a different discussion.

Andrew Duffy

The wire rope safety fence is certainly up to its job, and since it's much cheaper to repair after a collision is more likely to remain that way after its installation. There hasn't been a lot of research into the extra danger posed to motorcyclists over other types of barrier; there is some information here:
http://www.bmf.co.uk/briefing/motorcycles-and-safety-fence.html
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb201.pdf

bk

Wire rope safety fence is often used because it is one of the cheapest to install, cheapest to maintain, but most importantly the safest for cars and trucks.

The reason why it is the safest for them, is that it tends to absorb the force of the impact, rather then transfer the force of the impact back into the vehicle (like with concrete). This also reduces the possibility that the vehicle will be projected back into the road (and therefore back into traffic) by the force of the impact.

It is interesting to note that some reports have found that wire fence is no more or less dangerous for motorcyclists then other forms of crash barriers. The greatest danger for motorcyclists is actually the exposed posts that hold up almost all forms of crash barriers.

Improving crash barriers for motorcyclists has actually been focused on wrapping the exposed posts in plastic to reduce their danger to motorcyclists. Simulations have shown that in most motorcyclist crashes with wire fence, the cyclist usually falls off the bike before making contact with the fence.

Interestingly I've seen a press release by the NRA that says that crash barriers can in fact cause death to anyone (car, truck, bike, etc.) if hit at a particular speed and angle. Crash barriers are there only to reduce the possibility of the very worst type of crashes (and usually fatal) and that are head on crashes. But they don't guarantee that if you hit the barrier yourself, that you won't be killed.

Lennoxschips

3.5 meters is the standard width of motorway lanes in Holland. I know they have slightly wider ones in Germany, but that's because they drive so fast there.

air

mysterious wrote:

No more standard steel barriers. NRA wants cheaper cheese shredder types. They appear to be just as safe. I doubt it.

I'd much rather hit a concrete one if I slid off a motorbike. I've read that motorcyclists have been split in two by the posts of barriers with metal posts - leg either side, ouch!

mysterious wrote:

Medians are not grass anymore, just a mere strip to separate the road, with either a cheese shredder or concrete barrier(again cheaper)

Doesnt bother me tbh. I saw some of the concrete barriers going in on the Fermoy bypass and from what I can see they were slipformed with vertical rebar going into the road to strengthen them.
Has anyone ever seen one broken by a vehicle?
I would have thought it would be difficult to hit one at at an angle that would mean you would do anything other than glance off it or slide along it.

mysterious wrote:

Bridges are built with a pillar on each side beside of the HS so this means no scope for adding an extra lane on the side as the median are non starters. In this country we just bulldoze it and waste money on a road that could have being built for an option of future of third lane!

For sure, surely the cost for a wider span would not be much more. The design, analysis and engineering costs would be very similar, just add some more materials.
The new stretch of road between Tralee and Killarney has some shockingly narrow bridges.

Celtic Warrior

Wire rope safety barriers are used alot in Sweden and the swedes are mostly safety minded so I reckon there good. Agree though that for bikers if they hit them there times up!

Concrete barriers are actually quite expensive to build

jjbrien

I don’t see the problem with having concrete barriers instead of the metal thing in the middle. In the US and Canada they use concrete barriers and it works well. The Jersey Turnpike which is one of the busiest motorways in the world has a concrete barrier in the middle and has lasted years.

probe

The biggest issue in terms of motorway safety in Ireland is the absence of motorway service areas and simple rest areas to stop. Drivers need a place to rest, take a break, have coffee or a meal, deal with phone calls, fuel up their vehicles deal with minor repair issues, and go to the toilet.

Driving while tired is as large a cause of accidents as driving with alcohol taken.

Despite the fact that there isn't yet a motorway for the entire journey between any two Irish cities, the combined impact of urban and suburban filling stations shutting down thanks to Ireland's property bubble, and the increased amount of motorway which causes one to bypass towns where one might have formally stopped for fuel, reduces the opportunity to buy fuel to one or two stations for the entire Cork to Dublin (240 km) road journey.

Many of the wire dividers in the central reservation used by the NRA are far lower in height and feebler looking than those used on even ordinary N roads in Sweden. They wouldn't have a hope of stopping a bus or truck from crossing the centre and hitting oncoming traffic coming in the opposing direction. NRA style wire dividers are not used anywhere on continental motorways where metal or concrete crash barriers are the norm.

10% of accidents on European motorways happen to people who stop their vehicles on the emergency stopping lane. Making them narrower is shortsighted and negligent. The NRA has spent billions acquiring land for these developments and yet they have produced a very low quality user unfriendly product. Additional lanes will have to be added to some of these motorway segments as traffic grows in time. There is no evidence that such expansion flexibility (positioning of bridge supports, spare land etc) has been engineered into these new roads in Ireland.

Signage is unclear in many cases, and confusing (using blue signs to indicate connections to green or white routes). There are no KP (kilometric point) signs every 500 m or so, to enable an accident or breakdown victim pinpoint accurately where they are stuck to the emergency services. There is no provision in the "system" to work out which is the best exit to take for a given town (in France you can see the names of the next 3 exits before every off ramp).

The white line between the slow lane and the emergency stopping lane isn't in 50m chunks to remind drivers to keep the minimum safe stopping distance from the car in front (100m at 120 km/h) - a standard feature on most European motorways.

Irish toll booths are the only ones in Europe that don't take credit cards - even on the Dublin Port Tunnel route with its very high peak time tolls. Cards are faster to pay with compared with cash, require less toll booth staff to be present to provide a given level of service and reduce the risk of accidents as motorists fiddle to find the correct change coming up to a payment area.

By international standards the road surfaces on many of the new motorways are poor - by this I mean rough and undulating and many don't use low noise surfaces. When traffic volumes on motorways picks up, motorway noise is going to become a big issue - making the process of planning approval for new motorways very much more difficult because they will get such a bad name. Low noise surfaces are also far safer because they don't cause lots of spray to be thrown up at oncoming vehicles in wet weather. This makes overtaking trucks safer in rain, bla, bla, bla.

The NRA made virtually every mistake in the book when it came to motorway design in Ireland and failed to learn from other countries.

As is the case with so many Irish government agencies and their operations.

.probe

mackerski

probe wrote:

Signage is unclear in many cases, and confusing (using blue signs to indicate connections to green or white routes).

In line with British practice, all destinations signed from Motorways should be white on blue (though there are non-compliant exampled aplenty). British reasoning here, IIRC, is that only important destinations will ever be signed from a motorway (and only important roads will warrant junctions). Therefore there's no point in overburdening the driver with the distinction between destinations of different importance.

probe wrote:

There is no provision in the "system" to work out which is the best exit to take for a given town (in France you can see the names of the next 3 exits before every off ramp).

The system is sound - most destinations will have a single exit. Those that have more (Dundalk, Naas) can and do qualify the exit signs. I'm not saying the French system is bad, just that ours is perfectly acceptable.

probe wrote:

The white line between the slow lane and the emergency stopping lane isn't in 50m chunks to remind drivers to keep the minimum safe stopping distance from the car in front (100m at 120 km/h) - a standard feature on most European motorways.

The white line isn't white either

I don't know where you get the idea that "most" countries do this. I recall seeing it in France, but I can't think of any other country. Most countries I've driven in don't do it at all. I think it's a valid idea, but by no means a must-have.

probe wrote:

The NRA made virtually every mistake in the book when it came to motorway design in Ireland and failed to learn from other countries.

I can't agree with this either. Our motorway idiom is copied almost 100% from the UK (badly in places, but the intention to build on existing knowledge is clear). Junction design is an area where we are well ahead of most continental countries (arguably more than is necessary), and the signage standards, if only implemented correctly, are consistent and logical. Our lanes are wide, hard shoulders are always provided and at even the sniff of a bend the limit goes down to 100. (See, we can make mistakes of our own for other countries to copy).

fiachs

Additional lanes will have to be added to some of these motorway segments as traffic grows in time. There is no evidence that such expansion flexibility (positioning of bridge supports, spare land etc) has been engineered into these new roads in Ireland.

Anywhere that you see a grass median on an irish road has been designed to accommodate an additional lane in each direction. Except in the Dublin Area there aren't many motorways which are going to need more than 4 lanes any time soon....

Irish toll booths are the only ones in Europe that don't take credit cards - even on the Dublin Port Tunnel route with its very high peak time tolls. Cards are faster to pay with compared with cash, require less toll booth staff to be present to provide a given level of service and reduce the risk of accidents as motorists fiddle to find the correct change coming up to a payment area.

I don't know about other roads but the M4 Toll Booths accept credit cards...

By international standards the road surfaces on many of the new motorways are poor - by this I mean rough and undulating and many don't use low noise surfaces. When traffic volumes on motorways picks up, motorway noise is going to become a big issue - making the process of planning approval for new motorways very much more difficult because they will get such a bad name. Low noise surfaces are also far safer because they don't cause lots of spray to be thrown up at oncoming vehicles in wet weather. This makes overtaking trucks safer in rain, bla, bla, bla.

I would disagree strongly on this point - Motorway road surfaces in Ireland are of a very high quality, the real challenge is going to be when it comes to having to resurface these roads, given that so many have been built within a short timeframe we're going to end up having a maintenence regime which will mean a couple of years of frantic resurfacing followed by 10 year lulls...

As for noise levels - a doubling of traffic levels on a road leads to a (circa) 3dBA increase in noise - a level which is just noticeable by most people. So motorway noise is going to remain pretty consistant. Porous Asphalt does lead to lower noise levels, but it's not significant.

Irish Motorways are built to a very high standard in my opinion, just try driving on an American Interstate and see the difference.

Lennoxschips

The white line between the slow lane and the emergency stopping lane isn't in 50m chunks to remind drivers to keep the minimum safe stopping distance from the car in front (100m at 120 km/h) - a standard feature on most European motorways.

They definitely don't have these in Holland, it's a single white line. I'm pretty sure they're not on the Autobahn either. The only place I've seen it is France. A fixed distance isn't a good guide for car seperation anyway, as it is speed dependent. Here they ram home the "two second rule", which applies to all speeds.

The biggest problem I have with the Irish motorways are the on-ramp merging lanes (copied straight from the UK) which are much too short. Couple this with the fact that most Irish drivers don't know how to merge (or how to allow others to merge properly) and the thing is a mess. It's also difficult to see the distinction between normal lane lines and exit lane lines.