Motorway redesignation Phase #2 released

jd

http://www.wicklownews.ie/2008/11/18/toll-for-n11/

Councillors seem pretty determined not to have it zoned a motorway. They wouldn't have carte blanche to rezone adjacent to the n11 and its junctions.

Toll for N11?

National Roads Authority (NRA) plans to upgrade sections of the N11 to a motorway have sparked fears toll booths maybe on the way.
Wicklow County Councillor Jimmy O’Shaughnessy said the roads body had “another motive” when it came to making sections of the road a motorway.
“I think that if this (the plans) is allowed to happen we will soon see it being made a toll road,” he said in a statement. “The national Roads Authority is not seeking to have this road made into a motorway for nothing.
...
Cllr O’Shaughnessy said the plans would have a devastating effect on farmers and people with motorbikes under 50cc under current motorway restrictions.
“It would also affect farmers, as agricultural vehicles are not allowed on motorways,” he stated. “This means they will be forced to travel through Arklow town and possibly Wicklow town, and places like Ashford and Rathnew.
“This will add to the further congestion in these towns and villages.”

Amtmann

BluntGuy was right: the speed limit has been raised to 120km/h from Watergrasshill to Glanmire on the N8 dual carriagway. The limit remains 100 from there to Dunkettle, though.

BluntGuy

National Roads Authority (NRA) plans to upgrade sections of the N11 to a motorway have sparked fears toll booths maybe on the way.

*Sigh*

They really are trying everything to oppose this.

I'm glad the time given to lodge complaints/appeals/submissions for this project was so short.

The stretch is being upgraded for safety reasons. Do these councillors really think it's safe to have tractors/cyclicts/pedestrians on these DCs?

The councillors seem to believe that the real reason for the upgrade is to shove a toll on it? Well, councillors, here's a question for you:

What's your REAL reason for continously opposing this move?

Alun

“It would also affect farmers, as agricultural vehicles are not allowed on motorways,” he stated. “This means they will be forced to travel through Arklow town and possibly Wicklow town, and places like Ashford and Rathnew.
“This will add to the further congestion in these towns and villages.”

Congestion in Ashford and Rathnew? Those places are like ghost towns now the N11 has bypassed them.

L1011

Gombeenism at its finest -"My constituents have the right to drive their hairdryers-on-wheels and tractors at 40k/mh on roads with a design speed of over 160km/h BECAUSE THEY ALWAYS HAVE"

Amtmann

Alun wrote: »

Congestion in Ashford and Rathnew? Those places are like ghost towns now the N11 has bypassed them.

How do people like this 'councillor' get elected. Happily, the NRA will be able to dismiss such feeble objections easily.

Stark

No doubt by spreading FUD such as the "toll bridge" nonsense above to get their electorate riled up.

BluntGuy

MYOB wrote: »

Gombeenism at its finest -"My constituents have the right to drive their hairdryers-on-wheels and tractors at 40k/mh on roads with a design speed of over 160km/h BECAUSE THEY ALWAYS HAVE"

Thank you.

It's ridiculous. The road should have been motorway from the start, let alone now.

A rubbish reason to oppose the move.

"Oh, they shouldn't go ahead with this because, because they might place a toll on it, despite the fact there's absolutely no evidence to back this up this ludicrous claim."

If the NRA wanted to toll the road, they would've done it whether the road was motorway or not. The road doesn't have to be motorway in order to toll it (think Eastlink Toll Bridge, think N25 Toll Bridge (though I'm hoping that becomes M)).

Using their logic, one would have to assume that all redesignated stretches will incur tolls. A notion, we can all agree, that is equally as ridiculous as their unfounded claims.

ardmacha

You'd be in fear of your life driving on Ontario roads with low visibility, even 400 series highways, because they have neither and the lane markings are often impossible to make out in rainfall so you don't have the bumpy reminder if you're straying out of lane.

Mind you they could do with more cat's eyes here and some maintenance of the ones they have! I know Ontario is supposed not to use them because of snow clearance, but how come New York State doesn't have this problem?

AugustusMaximus

Furet wrote: »

BluntGuy was right: the speed limit has been raised to 120km/h from Watergrasshill to Glanmire on the N8 dual carriagway. The limit remains 100 from there to Dunkettle, though.

Excellent news.

Carawaystick

BluntGuy wrote: »

*Sigh*

They really are trying everything to oppose this.


The stretch is being upgraded for safety reasons. Do these councillors really think it's safe to have tractors/cyclicts/pedestrians on these DCs?

It's a helluva lot safer on the Dual carriageway section than the section between Barndarrig and the Beehive.

There's private accesses on the south end of the Rathnew bypass, no way to prevent pedestrians, tractors or cyclists from getting out of their homes.

Gombeenism by O'Shaughnessy though.

BluntGuy

Carawaystick wrote: »

It's a helluva lot safer on the Dual carriageway section than the section between Barndarrig and the Beehive.

I disagree... with traffic zooming by at 120 km/h (or even 100 km/h), what place is there for a cyclist or tractor on such a road?

Yes, DCs are safer than the useless, windy S2 that makes up much of our network. But DCs are only safer when proper restrictions are in force. If high-speed DCs are allowed to retain the same restrictions as the old roads they are replacing, their safety effect is negated and the road may even become more dangerous as a result.

Far safer to have a tractor trundling along at 40 km/h in 80 or 60 km/h traffic than have it troddling about on a road specifically designed for 120 km/h travel (though their design does enable safe 160 km/h travel - but that's a whole other debate).

And I don't care if they use the hard shoulder. The hard shoulder isn't a "convenience lane", it isn't designed to allow slow-moving traffic. It is an emergency lane, end of story.

ipodrocker

does that mean watergrasshill to glanmire is still the n8 but with higher speed limit or has the m8 been extended?

Stark

Still the N8 for now, although it's quite likely that it will be redesignated the M8 when the second round of motorway orders take effect.

BluntGuy

ipodrocker wrote: »

does that mean watergrasshill to glanmire is still the n8 but with higher speed limit or has the m8 been extended?

Yes, the Watergrasshill-Glanmire stretch is still N8, so don't freak out if you see a tractor.

I have e-mailed the NRA with plenty of questions, and one of them is when the motorway redesignation is expected to come through. I will post the answer I get from them soon.

I expect the stretch to be redesignated in the middle of next year.

BluntGuy

Well, the answer I got from them on when this is expected to be done was not concrete, they just said it was being handled by the minister.

marmurr1916

BluntGuy wrote: »

Well, the answer I got from them on when this is expected to be done was not concrete, they just said it was being handled by the minister.

It'll depend on whether or not there are objections. The more objections the longer the delay.

It looks like the Dunkettle-Glanmire section will have a 100km/h speed limit even if it does get redesignated to motorway.

E92

marmurr1916 wrote: »

It looks like the Dunkettle-Glanmire section will have a 100km/h speed limit even if it does get redesignated to motorway.

The same was said of the Cashel bypass, and it got a 120 km/h limit.

Dunkettle - Glanmire is definitely a better standard of road than the Cashel bypass, so I would see no reason why it shouldn't get anything less than 120 km/h.

I know some people think 120 is too high, but as the anti speeding people keep reminding us, it's a limit and not a target.

ipodrocker

what do people think of the exit for glanmire going northbound , its a sharp turn, cant see them letting it stay open if the road upgrades to motorway status, and the at grade junction which follows only has slip on northbound slip off southbound. I wonder why that junction wasnt made a proper full at grade junction would make more sense to have slips for north and sound bound.

Amtmann

ipodrocker wrote: »

what do people think of the exit for glanmire going northbound , its a sharp turn, cant see them letting it stay open if the road upgrades to motorway status, and the at grade junction which follows only has slip on northbound slip off southbound. I wonder why that junction wasnt made a proper full at grade junction would make more sense to have slips for north and sound bound.

Yes, a very sharp turn, with almost no warning, and a very short separation lane. In my opinion the northbound carriageway is more inappropriate for 120km/h than the southbound on this particular section because, in addition to that Glanmire turn-off, there is also a fairly steep descent coupled with a sharpish turn. I have done 120km/h there once (I admit it) and felt I was going a little too fast for the conditions.

Zoney

E92 wrote: »

The same was said of the Cashel bypass, and it got a 120 km/h limit.

Dunkettle - Glanmire is definitely a better standard of road than the Cashel bypass, so I would see no reason why it shouldn't get anything less than 120 km/h.

I know some people think 120 is too high, but as the anti speeding people keep reminding us, it's a limit and not a target.

It would be less of a problem if it weren't for the fact that many people see a 120 km/h limit as "ah sure 140 km/h isn't even really speeding".

Besides, shouldn't any 120 km/h limit road have road conditions suitable for higher speeds? New motorways are 160 km/h specced, and surely a road should just about cope with 140 km/h speeds if there is a 120 km/h limit.

If a road seems a bit unsafe driving at 120 km/h, then a limit of just that seems a bad idea considering the need for some boundary between the speed limit and road capability.

Amtmann

Okay, I've an update on the state of play.

People had until 14 November to object to any one, or all, of the current redesignation candidates.
Some did.

The NRA responded on a case by case basis.

The objectors now have until 19 December to plead their case again.
After the 19th, Department of Transport officials will compile a report for the minister and present it to him during the first half of January. He will then make his decision on a case by case basis, so some redesignations might proceed while others do not. It's not all or nothing.

The Department would hope that, subject to ministerial approval, the actual changeover (blue signs, etc.) will take place some time in March.

D.L.R.

Furet wrote: »

Okay, I've an update on the state of play.

People had until 14 November to object to any one, or all, of the current redesignation candidates.
Some did.

The NRA responded on a case by case basis.

The objectors now have until 19 December to plead their case again.
After the 19th, Department of Transport officials will compile a report for the minister and present it to him during the first half of January. He will then make his decision on a case by case basis, so some redesignations might proceed while others do not. It's not all or nothing.

The Department would hope that, subject to ministerial approval, the actual changeover (blue signs, etc.) will take place some time in March.

Do you know what the situation is for those stretches that don't get through first time, the southern half of the M9 for instance?

Because, apparently the southern M9 is now redesignated along with the rest of the first tranche (according to posters on boards/sabre) but there was no public announcement of this.

Amtmann

I couldn't get any specifics.

BluntGuy

Furet wrote: »

Okay, I've an update on the state of play.

People had until 14 November to object to any one, or all, of the current redesignation candidates.
Some did.

The NRA responded on a case by case basis.

The objectors now have until 19 December to plead their case again.
After the 19th, Department of Transport officials will compile a report for the minister and present it to him during the first half of January. He will then make his decision on a case by case basis, so some redesignations might proceed while others do not. It's not all or nothing.

The Department would hope that, subject to ministerial approval, the actual changeover (blue signs, etc.) will take place some time in March.

Overall, that was an encouraging update. Hopefully the minister will have the sense to overlook the petty objections to stretches which by all account need restrictions (not necessarily the 120 km/h limit) in order to keep inappropiate traffic off or (in many cases) stop stupid development from taking place.

In response to the M9, there is nothing officially stating that southern 64 km stretch has been redesignated. However according to the NRA, the issue (that impeded its redesignation) has been "resolved", so I presume that means redesignation has taken place.

fricatus

BluntGuy wrote: »

In response to the M9, there is nothing officially stating that southern 64 km stretch has been redesignated. However according to the NRA, the issue (that impeded its redesignation) has been "resolved", so I presume that means redesignation has taken place.

(Adopts Lord Riddley-Gout accent) Why, how very Irish!!!

Good to hear though. I only wish they'd include the Waterford bypass in this. I really fear it will be a free-for all otherwise.

icdg

BluntGuy wrote: »

Overall, that was an encouraging update. Hopefully the minister will have the sense to overlook the petty objections to stretches which by all account need restrictions (not necessarily the 120 km/h limit) in order to keep inappropiate traffic off or (in many cases) stop stupid development from taking place.

In response to the M9, there is nothing officially stating that southern 64 km stretch has been redesignated. However according to the NRA, the issue (that impeded its redesignation) has been "resolved", so I presume that means redesignation has taken place.

No SI to that effect on irishstatutebook.ie . However it sometimes takes a while for them to appear there after they're promulgated. But there's nothing that I can find on the (more quickly updated) Iris Offiguil website to say that another SI has been enacted, so unless I've missed something the southern half of the N9 has yet to be reclassified officialy.

Chris_533976

They've said that the issue has been resolved (the need for some M10 maybe, or perhaps an escape for alternative route traffic). They've said nothing about reclassifying it yet.

BluntGuy

Chris_533976 wrote: »

They've said that the issue has been resolved (the need for some M10 maybe, or perhaps an escape for alternative route traffic). They've said nothing about reclassifying it yet.

They said it had been "resolved", but they also said that there was to be no third tranche of redesignations, at least not in the short-term.

So that means two things:

(a) The stretch was redesignated, but there is nothing official stating it.

(b) The stretch remains standard N road and may possibly redesignated in a few years time. In which case the issue was "resolved" simply by not redesignating it. :mad:

BluntGuy

Here was the original M9 proposal anyway...

http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/10978-3.pdf

If the issue with junctions 5 - 12 was "resolved", surely common sense dicates that the stretch has been redesignated.

***

When these roads (hopefully) go blue in March/April (I predict June I'm afraid), then will signs like this be changed to say "M-"...

http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/gallery/displayimage.php?album=268&pos=84

Something tells me not. They didn't do it for the last round of redesignations, so I doubt they'll do it now. It's annoying because it's going to lead to further confusion. It's also annoying because in 2010, we will have 4 brand new high-spec motorway inter-urbans complimented by some of the most inconsistent road signage in Europe.

It's an issue we really need to start caring about because I've seen it said in numerous tourist reviews that people found the road signage to be confusing (in addition to finding the roads dreadful).

BluntGuy

Final update:

December 19th was the closing date for the second round of submissions.

They did it a hell of a lot quicker than last time round, giving whingers less time to make complaints.

Last time, June 20th was the closing date for the second round of submissions. The S.I came into effect on July 17th with the actual redesignation taking place on September 24th.

If the timeline was to be exactly the same for this scheme then:

Closing Date: December 19th
S.I: January 16th
Redesignation: March 20th

Anyway I can't wait for picture 1 (see below) to turn into picture 2... :cool:

ipodrocker

Bluntguy, i see you got out the photoshop skills very good and i agree sooner the better!

BluntGuy

ipodrocker wrote: »

Bluntguy, i see you got out the photoshop skills very good and i agree sooner the better!

I thought people might appreciate that.

Obviously there's not really much in the way of pictures to show for this whole process, so that's all I could really do.

There is of course one problem I thought people would notice with the second picture...

BluntGuy

BluntGuy wrote: »

There is of course one problem I thought people would notice with the second picture...

We did! just not pedantic enough too polite to comment

AugustusMaximus

BluntGuy wrote: »

I thought people might appreciate that.

Obviously there's not really much in the way of pictures to show for this whole process, so that's all I could really do.

There is of course one problem I thought people would notice with the second picture...

No Euroroute sign.

BluntGuy

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

No Euroroute sign.

Perhaps this might help you out a bit...

Chris_533976

SOmeone PS a tractor in there

BluntGuy

BluntGuy wrote: »

Perhaps this might help you out a bit...

I was looking at the N as well.

BluntGuy

Deleted User wrote: »

I was looking at the N as well.

Hey, I'm not perfect!

Skyhater

Solid Yellow line..... was going to mention it, but didn't want to win this weeks "pedantic pat" award

Amtmann

Hopefully there'll be some movement on this during the coming week.

Chris_533976

Is that confirmed from a source, or a hope that something will happen

Lets see where the whingers strike this time round

Amtmann

I spoke to a DOT official - in early December I think it was - and he told me then the Minister would be signing in early to mid January.

Will be interesting to see if the "tractors-should-drive-on-dual carriageway" brigade succeeded in blocking the creation of the M11.

BluntGuy

Chris_533976 wrote: »

Is that confirmed from a source, or a hope that something will happen

EDIT: Never mind...

If we base it on last time's events then the redesignation should happen this coming week or the next.

The NRA did do all the applications/hearings/appeals etc. quicker this time. Now all that's left is the S.I.

Lets see where the whingers strike this time round

I wouldn't be surprised if the Athlone Bypass and N11 redesignations didn't go ahead.

But if the N8 Watergrasshill-Dunkettle doesn't, or the N7 Phase 1: I think I'll just give up.

Also, will the mystery surrounding the southern section of N9 HQDC finally be revealed. Is it motorway or not? The issue impeding it from being M was "resolved". So what's the status of it now?

It's particularly important because the first part of that (Waterford-Knocktopher) will be opening this year and if I see green signs up I'll be sickened (especially in the knowledge that sooner or later, the stretch WILL be redesignated).

Chris_533976

I wouldnt be surprised if Athlone doesnt get it, leaving us with a Cumberland Gap.

I'm beginning to think though that Athlone really needs another bridge for local traffic. The big problem with the Athlone bypass is that people have been using it for years as a local route, and some wont be able to now. I could see why they would whinge in that case.

That said, its more important for this to be a motorway, albeit with a 100kmh limit. If it opens as 120 is probably not the best thing in the world.

I really hope the N18 gets it, if prime road like that doesnt get redesignated. But I can see Clare Co Co having a go about it as they are the 'ribbon development kings'.

BluntGuy

An article from last August:

http://www.westmeathindependent.ie/articles/1/29646/

Okay, to be fair, back then the West Meath Independent probably didn't know there'd be a second tranche of motorway redesignations, but the attitude towards redesignating the bypass is pretty clear.

Alun

Chris_533976 wrote: »

I wouldnt be surprised if Athlone doesnt get it, leaving us with a Cumberland Gap.

Which since 5th December no longer exists (about bloody time too).

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/5069.aspx

Bards

seems that someone got off a speeding fine on the Carlow Bypass when it opened with 100 Km/h limits

http://www.carlowpeople.ie/news/bypass-speeding-case-struck-out-1600177.html

A TULLOW man who was before the court for speeding on the new Carlow bypass had his case struck out at the district court on Wednesday.

John Higginson of Mount Anvil, Castlegrace, Tullow was charged with speeding at Rathcrogue on June 10 2008 at 126 km in a 100 kph zone.

The defendant told the court that there was no show from his solicitor Michelle Treacy but that he believed the speed limit on the motorway to be 120 km at the time of the offence, the day the new road opened.

At the opening of the new motorway the limit was set at 100 kph but later changed to 120 kph.

On agreement with gardaí, Judge William Harnett struck out the case.

L1011

He was still going above 120km/h at the time though? Weird judge...

BluntGuy

Well, it's understandable, but not excusable...

As ridiculous as it was to have an annoying 100 km/h limit, there were plenty of signs up informing drivers that this was the case.