M40 motorway redesignation and demand management system [works ongoing]

hans aus dtschl

SeanW wrote: »

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?

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.

SeanW

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

To be sure, I also agree that the distributor roads proposed in CMATS should be built, but they are totally unnecessary for the redesignation of the N40 - 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. That would be lunacy.

marno21

Exhibit A. I was merging from the N28 onto the N40 westbound today at 1pm or so. There was a tractor in lane 1 coming from Mahon. Normally its difficult enough to merge onto the N40 there given the volume of traffic coming from Mahon, but it’s an even more difficult job when there’s a rolling roadblock in lane 1. There’s also no hard shoulder there so the margin for error is zero.

This tractor would be better off going via town, where it would be driving at 50km/h like everything else, as opposed to driving at half the speed of the other traffic on the N40. That’s aside from the fact that most of what these tractors have as cargo can be transported via other means.

Hibernicis

marno21 wrote: »

Exhibit A. I was merging from the N28 onto the N40 westbound today at 1pm or so. There was a tractor in lane 1 coming from Mahon. Normally its difficult enough to merge onto the N40 there given the volume of traffic coming from Mahon, but it’s an even more difficult job when there’s a rolling roadblock in lane 1. There’s also no hard shoulder there so the margin for error is zero.

This tractor would be better off going via town, where it would be driving at 50km/h like everything else, as opposed to driving at half the speed of the other traffic on the N40. That’s aside from the fact that most of what these tractors have as cargo can be transported via other means.

Couldn't agree more. The N40 as is is a disaster waiting to happen.

Step 1

Reclassify N40 to M40 as a matter of urgency purely on safety grounds

Step 2 - in order of your choosing

• North Ring
• M28
• Dunkettle
• Local distributor roads
• Junction improvements (partial freeflow for KRR, extend merge/demerge lanes)
• Whatever you're having yourself

hans aus dtschl

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?

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

Exhibit A. I was merging from the N28 onto the N40 westbound today at 1pm or so. There was a tractor in lane 1 coming from Mahon. Normally its difficult enough to merge onto the N40 there given the volume of traffic coming from Mahon, but it’s an even more difficult job when there’s a rolling roadblock in lane 1. There’s also no hard shoulder there so the margin for error is zero.

This tractor would be better off going via town, where it would be driving at 50km/h like everything else, as opposed to driving at half the speed of the other traffic on the N40. That’s aside from the fact that most of what these tractors have as cargo can be transported via other means.

I reckon I passed you at the same time!

Shortly afterwards, there was a rolling roadblock northbound. I thought it was a person towing a horsebox, but it turned out to be a standard Skoda Fabia driving at around 50kmh.

I disagree that a tractor should be routed through town though: that's not something I want to see, they're not appropriate to route through town. I agree the N40 isn't the place for them either.

hans aus dtschl

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.

hans aus dtschl

Hibernicis wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. The N40 as is is a disaster waiting to happen.

Step 1

Reclassify N40 to M40 as a matter of urgency purely on safety grounds

Step 2 - in order of your choosing

• North Ring
• M28
• Dunkettle
• Local distributor roads
• Junction improvements (partial freeflow for KRR, extend merge/demerge lanes)
• Whatever you're having yourself

OK, I assume (always dangerous!) that the disaster "waiting to happen" is somebody crashing into a tractor or a cyclist or something? Because we are seeing crashes on the N40 every few weeks at the moment, that haven't been blamed on slow moving vehicles other than one crash, many years ago. This crash of course having been formally blamed on driver inattention, but was ostensibly seen by some on here as a proof of Darwin's theory of evolution.

I personally don't see this M40 classification as addressing safety issues. Rather, just a lazy rerouting of slower traffic through the city centre to make people's commute slightly faster on the days there isn't a pile-up. Or we can at least rest assured during the next weekly pile-up that "well, at least it wasn't a tractor that caused it!".

hans aus dtschl

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.

Markcheese

Whats the demand management part of the programme?
Making the N40 a motorway, isn't going to magically remove much traffic,
And the speeds more than likely staying at 100kph,
Douglas and Broomfield aren't going to magically improve,
The tunnel is going to be the way it is (or worse) for the next 3 or 4 years minimum...
The only thing that could be done is improve driver behaviour.
Slowing down, stopping weaving, and last minute lane changing and Que skipping... But I can't see much change coming there

SeanW

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

Last Friday N40 between Kinsale Road and Douglas (source: nratrafficdata.ie

Total: 98970
Motorbike: 224 (0.2%)
Car: 86681 (87.6%)
LGV: 8024 (8.1%)
Bus: 151 (0.2%)
Rigid HGV: 1530 (1.5%)
Arctic HGV: 2038 (2.0%)
Caravan: 311 (0.3%)
Other 11

Some of these could be incorrect readings but you get the gist

Hibernicis

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

98970 is beyond mad for a city of Cork's size also. It's important to remember that that section of the N40 is also less than 30 years old!

Hibernicis

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.

spacetweek

Reclassification will not make the slightest bit of difference to:

- Massive levels of traffic on the road
- Underpowered junctions and Douglas flyover
- Lack of public transport
- Lack of alternative routes

So the point of it is....?

hans aus dtschl

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

hans aus dtschl

spacetweek wrote: »

Reclassification will not make the slightest bit of difference to:

- Massive levels of traffic on the road
- Underpowered junctions and Douglas flyover
- Lack of public transport
- Lack of alternative routes

So the point of it is....?

That's pretty much my entire point, thanks.
It seems like a waste of time and will inconvenience a tiny handfull of people, all so that they can say they're "doing something" when they're doing nothing of note.

hans aus dtschl

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.

Hibernicis

spacetweek wrote: »

Reclassification will not make the slightest bit of difference to:

- Massive levels of traffic on the road
- Underpowered junctions and Douglas flyover
- Lack of public transport
- Lack of alternative routes

So the point of it is....?

Safety, pure and simple.

I’m not going to do all of the math on this, but lets take account of basic queueing theory and irrational human behaviour while driving. Assume for arguments sake that the two lanes are moving along at 60kmph and 90kmph (in our dreams you might say) and calculate the throughput per hour. Along come Fergus the farmer drawing hay at 30kmph. So what’s his impact - 30kmph and 90kmph ? No, its far worse than that. Greta the granny in the silver Yaris who is comfortable occasionally doing 45kmph tightly grips the wheel and shifts lanes to overtake the tractor and trailer, and accelerates rapidly to 40kmph for the 6 or 7 minutes it takes her to anxiously overtake. So now we calculate the throughput based on the lanes moving at 30kmph and 40kmph. You’re probably down to a third of the standard throughput at this stage, if even. That’s bad enough, but it’s not actually my primary concern. The human reaction to sitautions like this is hugh frustration and anger resulting in all manner of risks being taken. Undertaking, overtaking, tailgaiting, unsignalled spontaneous and last second lane changes to slip into the safe zone between moving vehicles, etc etc etc. Anybody familiar with the N40 will be well familiar with this behaviour on a daily basis. And it is this which drives the need to reclassify the road. I don’t for a moment disagree with any of your bullet points, we all know that some or all of these need to be addressed. The problem is that the road is a moving traffic jam and reclassification is the only quick fix/sticking plaster to reduce the risk associated with a road that is operating so very far beyond its design capacity. All of the other improvements, as I have said in a number of posts, need to be done. The problem is that they will take years, at best. In the meantime some action must be taken to bring order to the chaos.

The figures that marno21 posted tonight are mind boggling. I’m fortunate, my circumstances now allow me to pick and choose the time of day I travel that road, and the times I avoid it like the plague. But I commuted along it at rush hour for a number of years and it Is little short of a miracle that there aren’t a lot more serious incidents. I firmly believe that there will be one, sooner rather than later.

marno21

spacetweek wrote: »

Reclassification will not make the slightest bit of difference to:

- Massive levels of traffic on the road
- Underpowered junctions and Douglas flyover
- Lack of public transport
- Lack of alternative routes

So the point of it is....?

Reclassification isn't meant to affect any of those. Why would it?

Reclassification is to aid reliability on the route. Removing rolling roadblocks and vulnerable road users which can increase the number of collisions and reduce the safety of the route is achieved partly through reclassification.

It's the same reason this traffic is banned from all motorways.

Markcheese

Fergus the farmer is probably driving a 50 kph vehicle, so he's still gonna be there,
Its not beyond imagination to have an alternative cycle path along a good portion of the route, a lot of its already either there or in public ownership... Bishopstown to Douglas anyway...
It is daft to have no viable public transport from dunkettle to curraheen... And then give out about numbers using their cars...

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

Reclassification isn't meant to affect any of those. Why would it?

Reclassification is to aid reliability on the route. Removing rolling roadblocks and vulnerable road users which can increase the number of collisions and reduce the safety of the route is achieved partly through reclassification.

It's the same reason this traffic is banned from all motorways.

I don't think it will though, really. Yesterday's rolling roadblock that I saw was just an old codger in a Fabia, choosing to drive slowly.

And I think the "removing vulnerable road users for their own safety" thing has been way overstated too. We all know the very easy way to deal with them properly. My safety is compromised every time I get on a bike, by rubbish infrastructure and rubbish driving and it's nigh on impossible to get attention or funding to resolve these, yet we're full-steam-ahead to resolve the N40 non-issue.

As I say, it'll go ahead and we'll all console ourselves at the next pile up that "at least it wasn't a slow tractor/caravan/cyclist that caused it" but I think we'd be fooling ourselves to think that traffic will improve or that the lot of vulnerable users will improve or that rolling roadblocks will be a thing of the past, sadly.

Chris_5339762

Another way to think about the N40.... where would you drive if you decided not to use it anymore? Its incredibly difficult to avoid. For me to get to work in the mornings, I have to drive on the N40, go through Cork itself (much slower) or get the ferry (much, MUCH slower). Thats it, there is no other option.

Public transport would be a 10 minute drive to Cobh rail station, 25 minutes on the train, a 10 minute walk and another 30 minutes probably on the 208.

Its a 40-50 minute drive plus a 10 minute walk from the work carpark, at rush hour.

BikeRacer

Anyone who's regularly driven the M50 and has been stuck behind rolling road blocks caused by tractors capable of 50 km/h and safety crews clearing crash after crash everyday, will tell you this 'safety' argument for reclassification is nonsense.
The same vehicles will be on the same overcapacity infrastructure while they'll now have less reaction time due to the increased speed limit.

kub

BikeRacer wrote: »

Anyone who's regularly driven the M50 and has been stuck behind rolling road blocks caused by tractors capable of 50 km/h and safety crews clearing crash after crash everyday, will tell you this 'safety' argument for reclassification is nonsense.
The same vehicles will be on the same overcapacity infrastructure while they'll now have less reaction time due to the increased speed limit.

It has been made quite clear that there will be no increase in the speed limit, it will remain as it is on the N40.
I trust as you are so knowledgeable on the M50 that you know the speed limit on that is also 100 kph.

BikeRacer

kub wrote: »

It has been made quite clear that there will be no increase in the speed limit, it will remain as it is on the N40.
I trust as you are so knowledgeable on the M50 that you know the speed limit on that is also 100 kph.

Apologies, I didn't realise the speed limit will stay the same. My point still stands.

BelfastVanMan

BikeRacer wrote: »

Apologies, I didn't realise the speed limit will stay the same. My point still stands.

Multiple speed limits on the M50, actually; between 60 and 120 kph.

hans aus dtschl

Yesterday had another crash on a straight section of N40 again. Cars.
Today's rolling roadblock was a large speedboat being towed by a jeep Westbound. In fairness they were doing 60kmh, though.

The above will be features of the N40 for the foreseeable future. There is no plan.