South link Works

Anyone know what they are actually doing between kinsale flyover and sarsfields flyover on both sides. Causing chaos in peak traffic.

Also they seem have put in a beam on link between the kinsale rd roundabout and the douglas exit, could this be the start of a footbridge for the park?

kub

You must mean on the South Ring Road, now known as the N40 and soon the M40.


What they are working on is upgrading the current barriers etc to motorway type standard and they are also wiring and installing live warning signs with expected travel times to various places such as Little Island etc.


The South Link, is the section of road between the Kinsale Road Roundabout and the The Elysian.

kub

kub wrote: »

You must mean on the South Ring Road, now known as the N40 and soon the M40.


What they are working on is upgrading the current barriers etc to motorway type standard and they are also wiring and installing live warning signs with expected travel times to various places such as Little Island etc.


The South Link, is the section of road between the Kinsale Road Roundabout and the The Elysian.

I and many others call it the link, but now i know.

Why bother calling it the M40, its not a motorway and i can never see it being 120km per hour.

cheers for the info anyway

kub

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I and many others call it the link, but now i know.

Why bother calling it the M40, its not a motorway and i can never see it being 120km per hour.

cheers for the info anyway

You are right, many people call it " the link ", I suppose it has gained a local nick name but the boring detail is correct ðŸ‘.

As regards the speed limit, it will be 100, just like the M50, this is more a safety thing from what I can gather.
Obviously the road is lethal for cyclists who currently can legally cycle on it as it is.

Chris_5339762

Deleted User wrote: »

I and many others call it the link, but now i know.

Why bother calling it the M40, its not a motorway and i can never see it being 120km per hour.

cheers for the info anyway

I doubt they'll ever up it to 120kmh, but there is a plan to redesignate it as motorway.

hans aus dtschl

kub wrote: »

You are right, many people call it " the link ", I suppose it has gained a local nick name but the boring detail is correct ðŸ‘.

As regards the speed limit, it will be 100, just like the M50, this is more a safety thing from what I can gather.
Obviously the road is lethal for cyclists who currently can legally cycle on it as it is.

Don't forget with M status it will also remove tractors too. I've seen tractors and cyclists on the N40. It's not ideal for either with current traffic levels. I cycle a lot myself but would hate to rely on the N40.

You'd have to say that a dedicated secondary route is needed from Douglas through to Ovens. Tramore valley park could be the start of this corridor for cyclists (if the councils had the will) but tractors don't have that option. I'm not a farmer myself so not really sure what to say about this. NRA can't just make it an M status and hope the they disappear (or worse, that they go through the city)! Someone's going to have to actually think about this a bit.

blindsider

Deleted User wrote: »

I and many others call it the link, but now i know.

Why bother calling it the M40, its not a motorway and i can never see it being 120km per hour.

cheers for the info anyway

The M50 is 100KPH...just sayin'....

zilog_jones

It's quite normal for high-traffic urban motorways to have lower speed limits. But there's much more to what makes a road a motorway than just that.

chalkitdown1

Isn't the tail end of it from Wilton onwards already 120kph?

grogi

Deleted User wrote: »

I and many others call it the link, but now i know.

Why bother calling it the M40, its not a motorway and i can never see it being 120km per hour.

cheers for the info anyway

To prevent cyclists and tractors from it. It's not only about speed.

Padraig Mor

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

Isn't the tail end of it from Wilton onwards already 120kph?

No, that's from about Curraheen onwards.

grogi wrote: »

To prevent cyclists and tractors from it. It's not only about speed.

Unfortunately, motorway designation does not exclude tractors in Ireland, and they are frequently seen on them.

j8wk2feszrnpao

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

Isn't the tail end of it from Wilton onwards already 120kph?

From about the Greyhound track to the end of Ballinollog, it's 120kph.
From Little Island to the end of Carrigtwhohill, it's also 120kph.

grogi

Padraig Mor wrote: »

No, that's from about Curraheen onwards.


Unfortunately, motorway designation does not exclude tractors in Ireland, and they are frequently seen on them.

But they exclude vehicles that cannot drive faster than 50km/h... What's the max speed of a typical tractor?

Padraig Mor

grogi wrote: »

But they exclude vehicles that cannot drive faster than 50km/h... What's the max speed of a typical tractor?

Most tractors would have a max speed over that - some 80 km/h. The British have a better system - vehicles running agri diesel are only legally allowed to drive at a max 30mph, but top speed needs to be over 30 to drive on motorways - result: if you're using agri diesel, you can't use the motorway.

hans aus dtschl

grogi wrote: »

To prevent cyclists and tractors from it. It's not only about speed.

I personally believe that's their primary motivation in looking for an M status.

And I also think it's a bit misguided. Just banning them won't magically create a preferable route. Same thing from Little Island to Carrigtohill / Midleton.

By all means upgrade the secondary routes and designate them as N. But an M without an equivalent N route is a waste of time, in my eyes.

Markcheese

grogi wrote: »

But they exclude vehicles that cannot drive faster than 50km/h... What's the max speed of a typical tractor?

Most tractors would have a 40 kph gear box, but many would have a 50 kph box..
But the the regs talk about a design speed of 50 kph, so the tractor doesn't have to be traveling at 50, and How's a garda supposed to know which is which at a glance, pretty sure most diggers and loaders wouldn't be designed to travel at 50
Though,
In theory a tractor going from ballincolig to little island will have to go through the city centre... They won't, but there is no other route, nor is there likely to be another route, (a new tunnel under the Lee)

kub

I always wonder what business tractors have on dual carriageway's travelling long distances
Surely they are designed for fields and obviously short journeys between those fields and the farm itself.

Why can't whatever it is they are transporting be put on a truck, that can drive at a more appropriate rate for a dual carriageway?

Padraig Mor

kub wrote: »

I always wonder what business tractors have on dual carriageway's travelling long distances
Surely they are designed for fields and obviously short journeys between those fields and the farm itself.

Why can't whatever it is they are transporting be put on a truck, that can drive at a more appropriate rate for a dual carriageway?

Because it's cheaper to use a tractor than do the job right.

hans aus dtschl

kub wrote: »

I always wonder what business tractors have on dual carriageway's travelling long distances
Surely they are designed for fields and obviously short journeys between those fields and the farm itself.

Why can't whatever it is they are transporting be put on a truck, that can drive at a more appropriate rate for a dual carriageway?

What you're saying makes sense in the context of a motorway, but not an N road.

What's an appropriate speed for a dual carriageway? Right now, the N40 is moving at about 10kmh. You'd be able to run faster than the cars. Certainly cycle faster than them or drive a tractor faster than them. There's no obligation to drive at the speed limit, hence the need for an overtaking lane.

So the idea that tractors shouldn't be on the N40 now because cars are faster is a fallacy. Many trucks won't do the speed limit either. You'll have plenty trucks, cranes and other equipment going at 40kmh, even after you ban tractors.

Hence my point that banning tractors and cyclists is flawed logic. These roads (N40, N25) were not designed just for short-distance commuter cars: if anything it's those we should be looking to partially ban.

Edit:
And again I'm not a farmer, but if you wanted to buy a piece of farm equipment in Little Island and bring it back to your farm on Carr's Hill for instance, what would your options be? Hire a truck, to bring the tractor to Little Island, to load the tractor and piece of equipment on to the truck and then drive them both back to Carr's Hill and unload them at your farm? And why? Because some short-distance car users would be inconvenienced?

hans aus dtschl

Markcheese wrote: »

In theory a tractor going from ballincolig to little island will have to go through the city centre... They won't, but there is no other route, nor is there likely to be another route, (a new tunnel under the Lee)

That's my point in the fallacy of designating an M40: what's the overall purpose other than to send some traffic back through the city?

Speaking with my cyclist hat on: most cyclists don't want to be on the grade separated roads, so if the alternate route is continuous and/or has a proper surface, you wouldn't see them on the dual carriageway anyway. As it is, even when they're allowed, many avoid the grade separated roads.

Simply calling these roads "Motorways" doesn't solve the problem, it just hides the problem.

And we haven't even begun to talk about L-plate drivers......

So yeah, an M40 and M25 in isolation are terrible ideas right now.

marno21

TII are working on an N40 motorway reclassification study at the minute. It's part of the N40 Demand Management Study that was published a few years back. Reclassifying the N40 as a motorway would remove non-motorway traffic from the road which causes delays at peak times, are a danger on the road and cause incidents which affect travel times. The only issue I can see with the road that could cause hassle with it becoming a motorway is the Vernon Mount exit at J6 Westbound. The rest of the N40 (and indeed the N22 Ballincollig bypass and N25 East Cork Parkway from Dunkettle to Carrigtwohill) are motorway standard and can be reclassified. It is unclear at present whether the N22 and N25 will be included, however there are long term plans for these roads to be extended to Macroom and Youghal respectively, which would leave one continuous motorway grade road between Macroom and Youghal. Not classifying it as motorway would be daft.

It is very common for people in Cork to refer to the N40 as "the Link". I often call it that because most people don't know it by any other name. I'd imagine the reason for the mixups is that the first incarnation of a dual carriageway in Cork ran from the Elysian to the dump (opened 1984) before being extended to the Kinsale Road Roundabout, onto Douglas (1990) and then it terminated at the Rochestown Road (1992). The section to Wilton opened later in 1995 and didn't continue on to Ballincollig until 2005. For a few years the only "Link" in the area was from the Elysian out to the dump/KRR/Douglas hence the confusion.

The N40 will remain at 100km/h if redesignated motorway except the current 120km/h section west of Curraheen. If anything, the M40 will gain variable speed limits going forward. Limits of 60km/h and 80km/h would yield smoother traffic flow on the Douglas flyover and other pinchpoints at peak times.

As kub said, the works on the N40 at the KRR westbound are to facilitate the installation of a gantry for a VMS sign, which will form part of the N40 Intelligent Transport System. It will be used to give drivers information on travel times, accidents, weather conditions, road closures etc. There is currently a few pilot ones on portable signs giving travel time information, eastbound after the KRR flyover, on the M8 southbound just before J18. These will be replaced with permanent signs in the near future. There are 13 of these signs being installed on the N40 and approach roads, works are ongoing or complete on 9 of them, and on 2 of the 6 CCTV masts required for traffic monitoring. Other construction sites are on the Ballincollig bypass eastbound, Airport Hill citybound, near the Viaduct citybound, on the N40 eastbound at Curraheen. Fabrication of the steel gantries to be installed on the bases is currently underway offsite.

grogi

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Edit:
And again I'm not a farmer, but if you wanted to buy a piece of farm equipment in Little Island and bring it back to your farm on Carr's Hill for instance, what would your options be? Hire a truck, to bring the tractor to Little Island, to load the tractor and piece of equipment on to the truck and then drive them both back to Carr's Hill and unload them at your farm? And why? Because some short-distance car users would be inconvenienced?

Exactly that. The freedom of a person is slightly reduced to benefit the rest of society. At the same time I'm not saying that is a good idea in the current scheme of roads around the city. But banning cyclists would be warmly welcomed.

TheChizler

grogi wrote: »

Exactly that. The freedom of a person is slightly reduced to benefit the rest of society. At the same time I'm not saying that is a good idea in the current scheme of roads around the city. But banning cyclists would be warmly welcomed.

How many cyclists have got in your way on the N40 though? There's the occasional one in the hard shoulder IME, doesn't impact me and the only danger is to themselves at junctions.

grogi

TheChizler wrote: »

How many cyclists have got in your way on the N40 though? There's the occasional one in the hard shoulder IME, doesn't impact me and the only danger is to themselves at junctions.

The real question you should ask is how many died.

And of course traffic on a hard shoulder introduces disruptions. Some people will slow down, some change a lane. With a cyclist moving at best at 35-40kmh, that is a lot of interactions. They also introduce a lot of uncertainty at the ramps.

I have nothing against cyclists. I cycle myself too - not excessively (around 100km/week) - but I am very firm that N40 is not a place for a cyclist.

TheChizler

grogi wrote: »

The real question you should ask is how many died...

That has nothing to do with benefiting non-cyclist users of the road, which is what your post was referring to.

grogi

TheChizler wrote: »

That has nothing to do with benefiting non-cyclist users of the road, which is what your post was referring to.

Of course it has.

Any incident with a cyclist is a cost for society:
* direct financial cost of emergency services dispatch
* indirect cost of those emergency services not being able to attend other incidents
* cost for the economy: in both of lost productivity while the cyclist is unable to work and lost time for any road user when a road is closed or congested.

hans aus dtschl

grogi wrote: »

Of course it has.

Any incident with a cyclist is a cost for society:
* direct financial cost of emergency services dispatch
* indirect cost of those emergency services not being able to attend other incidents
* cost for the economy: in both of lost productivity while the cyclist is unable to work and lost time for any road user when a road is closed or congested.

You could reduce cyclist deaths to zero overnight by banning bicycles entirely.
But that doesn't actually solve any problems.

What could solve the problems would be provision of an appropriate N road.

hans aus dtschl

grogi wrote: »

The real question you should ask is how many died.

And of course traffic on a hard shoulder introduces disruptions. Some people will slow down, some change a lane. With a cyclist moving at best at 35-40kmh, that is a lot of interactions. They also introduce a lot of uncertainty at the ramps.

I have nothing against cyclists. I cycle myself too - not excessively (around 100km/week) - but I am very firm that N40 is not a place for a cyclist.

Fine, ban all cyclists and tractors from everywhere. Problem solved.
Now, let's discuss L-plate drivers....

OR

Let's discuss the need for a direct secondary route.

You appear to be approaching this from a "facilitate cars first" perspective, but it's literally the inverse of what we should do, it should always be a priority to first facilitate pedestrians, then cyclists, public transport, HGV's and finally private motors, in that order.

hans aus dtschl

grogi wrote: »

Exactly that. The freedom of a person is slightly reduced to benefit the rest of society. At the same time I'm not saying that is a good idea in the current scheme of roads around the city. But banning cyclists would be warmly welcomed.

It doesn't benefit the rest of society though, as it specifically encourages car usage and discourages pedestrians and cyclists. So encouraging the mode of transport with a highest cost of ownership above the others.

TheChizler

grogi wrote: »

Of course it has.

Any incident with a cyclist is a cost for society:
* direct financial cost of emergency services dispatch
* indirect cost of those emergency services not being able to attend other incidents
* cost for the economy: in both of lost productivity while the cyclist is unable to work and lost time for any road user when a road is closed or congested.

True but is that really what goes through the mind of those who would warmly welcome banning bicycles from a dual carriageway?

hans aus dtschl

TheChizler wrote: »

True but is that really what goes through the mind of those who would warmly welcome banning bicycles from a dual carriageway?

It's irrelevant.
The idea that re-categorising the N40 as a motorway will allow better traffic throughput is a fallacy.

What's the AADT at Douglas and the tunnel? It's overcapacity. Reclassifying it in the hope of removing less than a % of traffic is deckchairs on the titanic territory as far as I can see.

They need to build the M40 North. They need to designate a secondary Douglas-Ballincollig route for L plate drivers and slow moving vehicles. They can call the remaining N40 whatever they want, or just introduce local restrictions like at the tunnel.

To reduce some of the biggest tailbacks I've seen on the N40, you'd have to ban puddles and ban massive fires in Douglas.

Reclassification is currently not a useful exercise. Tailbacks will remain.