M40 motorway redesignation and demand management system [works ongoing]

Chris_5339762

The driving on the N40 is absolutely terrible at the best of times. Weaving, diving from lane to lane, jumping out into impossibly small gaps, endless rubbernecking of the Douglas carpark, people absolutely pottering along for no reason and people skipping traffic queues by driving up the slip roads and cutting back in.

Cork Trucker

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

The driving on the N40 is absolutely terrible at the best of times. Weaving, diving from lane to lane, jumping out into impossibly small gaps, endless rubbernecking of the Douglas carpark, people absolutely pottering along for no reason and people skipping traffic queues by driving up the slip roads and cutting back in.

Lack of indication as well

Kalyke

Lack of manners being number one!

Cork Trucker

Kalyke wrote: »

Lack of manners being number one!

I think that's an Irish problem in general, not Cork specific.

BikeRacer

marno21 wrote: »

There was a cyclist killed on the N22 2 years ago.

The women who decided to turn around to her child in the back seat to take a tag off a toy and drifted across the road? Nothing to do with the cyclist and everything to do with driver stupidity.

marno21 wrote: »

Cycling on the N22 requires crossing on ramps with traffic merging and departing at high speed, and places cyclists and other vulnerable road users at risk due to high traffic volumes and high mainline traffic speeds.

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

marno21 wrote: »

I really don't get what's wrong with cycling the many roads which run parallel to the N22.

Most cyclists are drivers, and most drivers aren't cyclists so I can understand how this can be difficult to relate to. They're are a number of reasons why cycling on the N22 is better than other roads: far superior road surface which is nicer to cycle on and less chance of punctures, less unexpected hazards as everyone going same direction, better/longer clear line of sight for any unexpected hazards, no chance of close passes as no one will drive across the yellow line, the road is flat so less effort and less time travelling etc etc

Kevwoody

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

marno21 wrote: »

I really don't get what's wrong with cycling the many roads which run parallel to the N22.
.

I'd be happy to show you this one, if you're struggling with it. Genuinely.
I'd choose to cycle the N25 regularly over the alternative parallel roads.

The available parallel roads can be a real nightmare to cycle, and have real conflicts every few seconds (very close passes being the most common, but there are many others). The N40 only has real conflicts at the junctions (and potential conflict from people losing control of their vehicle and veering into the hard shoulder on the rest of the route).

This is the thing I'm trying to get across in this thread, but am clearly failing miserably: slow-moving traffic on the N40 mostly doesn't want to be on there, there's a lack of better alternatives. It can actually feel safer on the N40/N25 than the secondary routes. Shocking though that may be.

And again, I do want to see segregation. But as has been said above, we're still going to see tractors and cranes and other slow stuff on there, or else we're going to send big machines through town.

BelfastVanMan

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I'd be happy to show you this one, if you're struggling with it. Genuinely.
I'd choose to cycle the N25 regularly over the alternative parallel roads.

The available parallel roads can be a real nightmare to cycle, and have real conflicts every few seconds (very close passes being the most common, but there are many others). The N40 only has real conflicts at the junctions (and potential conflict from people losing control of their vehicle and veering into the hard shoulder on the rest of the route).

This is the thing I'm trying to get across in this thread, but am clearly failing miserably: slow-moving traffic on the N40 mostly doesn't want to be on there, there's a lack of better alternatives. It can actually feel safer on the N40/N25 than the secondary routes. Shocking though that may be.

And again, I do want to see segregation. But as has been said above, we're still going to see tractors and cranes and other slow stuff on there, or else we're going to send big machines through town.

Cyclist have NO place on HQDCs, and neither do pedestrians.

It's a Motorway in all but name.

If people continue to do so, then, IMHO, It's just natural selection at work.

hans aus dtschl

BelfastVanMan wrote: »

Cyclist have NO place on HQDCs, and neither do pedestrians.

It's a Motorway in all but name.

If people continue to do so, then, IMHO, It's just natural selection at work.

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.

AugustusMinimus

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

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

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.

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.

AugustusMinimus

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,

marno21

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

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

Indeed. Still a lot of rather ancient signage around the Lough with airport and ferry symbols on them. Must be 40 years old at this stage

Hibernicis

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

hans aus dtschl

Hibernicis wrote: »

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

Yes, I remember living in Frankfield and the trip to Wilton being an enormous effort. It just wasn't an easy journey. Those places were open, there just was nowhere near the connectivity that the N40 brought.

AugustusMinimus

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.

BikeRacer

Kevwoody wrote: »

Yea, of course you do!

Outstanding contribution to the debate.

hans aus dtschl

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!

AugustusMinimus

My view is that a separate cycle way should be built linking Dougla to the Sarsfield roundabout. The good news is that parts of this are already in place. Don’t think it would take much to complete it.

marno21

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

My view is that a separate cycle way should be built linking Dougla to the Sarsfield roundabout. The good news is that parts of this are already in place. Don’t think it would take much to complete it.

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

kub

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

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!

That there is an example of why so many people have blinkers on them with regard to the N40 and South Link Road.
They have forgotten or perhaps are not aware of all the alternative routes around the city and suburbs.

AugustusMinimus

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

kub wrote: »

That there is an example of why so many people have blinkers on them with regard to the N40 and South Link Road.
They have forgotten or perhaps are not aware of all the alternative routes around the city and suburbs.

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.

SeanW

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

SeanW wrote: »

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.

Previously to 1990? Because just to be clear, that's what we're talking about here. Cork was very different in 1990. The number of vehicles and traffic flows were very different. I don't believe that the existing alternative routes are anywhere near appropriate for the traffic they'll be required to facilitate. In short-hand: "I think the horse has bolted, unfortunately".

Cookiemunster

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Previously to 1990? Because just to be clear, that's what we're talking about here. Cork was very different in 1990. The number of vehicles and traffic flows were very different. I don't believe that the existing alternative routes are anywhere near appropriate for the traffic they'll be required to facilitate. In short-hand: "I think the horse has bolted, unfortunately".

These are the official restrictions on motorway useage.


You must not enter a motorway if:

• you are a learner driver or do not hold a full licence for the category of vehicle you are driving;

• your vehicle cannot travel or maintain a speed of at least 50km per hour;

• your vehicle has an engine capacity of 50cc or less;

• you drive a tractor that cannot travel at or maintain a speed of at least 50km/h

• your vehicle does not use inflated tyres;

• you are walking, cycling or moving animals;

• you drive a motorised wheelchair (also known as an invalid carriage).

That covers a tiny percentage of road users, so the old network is not going to be suddenly overwhelmed when the N40 becomes a motorway.

hans aus dtschl

Cookiemunster wrote: »

These are the official restrictions on motorway useage.

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.

SeanW

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".

Carawaystick

SeanW wrote: »

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,
...

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".

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.

SeanW

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?