N8/N25/N40 - Dunkettle Interchange [open to traffic]

Why would they use Dunkettle P&R, where they wouldn't use Little Island? It's less than a 2 minute drive difference. I actually use the train at Little Island for P&R purposes and I don't see anything like a demand. Also I don't foresee anyone using a Dunkettle P&R to access the city from the N40.

There was a good logic behind a Dunkettle P&R before the Dunkettle upgrade:

Tthere was space immediately beside the old interchange, and a direct slip from the M8 was possible. Now any P&R is at minimum a few minutes drive East of the interchange. This would seem like a waste of money at a time when Kilbarry and Carrigtohill West aren't funded, or when there's very poor pedestrian access to Little Island from the train station for instance.

Now that Dunkettle is - finally - free-flow from the M8, they expect people to get out of their car and stand in a parking lot in the cold waiting for a train that brings them to the eastern outskirts of the city? Why on earth would they bother?

I believe that investment in rail is a good thing, and this stop would actually be really near me. It would likely be more convenient for me than for most people on here (maybe everyone on here!) and I'm saying I don't think it makes a lot of sense. There's a demand for an additional P&R to the East of the city to capture people from Glanmire direction, but this won't (a Tivoli P&R potentially would).

Again, I say this as someone who uses the train at Little Island for P&R from time to time. And again Dunkettle would be more convenient for me! And god knows I'm one to moan on about sustainable transport, but this one looks very flimsy to me. It looks like a sop for the sake of saying they've "done something" for sustainable transport after (justifiably) spending a few hundred million on an interchange whose design is net neutral overall for sustainable transport.

With 5 train going through the P&R station, as proposed under the current plan, it would be a completely different proposition to that currently on offer at Little Island so that cannot be taken as an indicator. Also, there will be further restrictions on cars entering the city and removal of parking spaces which will result in people changing their habits.

A P&R station at North Esk would cost very little and the trains would be passing there anyway, its a no-brainer really.

Little Island is nearer to M8 by around 100m, not further??? M8 traffic no longer will need to go to the Interchange roundabout, which cuts off a small distance. It's around 1.8km distance between both train stations. I don't see anyone being swayed by this P&R, who wouldn't use Little island.

Those 5 trains go through Little Island too though so the point seems to be moot. I appreciate that you're saying "added frequency and marginally closer distance will make this a more attractive prospect" but the frequency is largely irrelevant: we're discussing the distance and cost. It'll be €10mil or more to do up North Esk in the end, and I believe that Kilbarry or Carrigtohill West would cater for multiples of the passengers. Let alone Tivoili.

As I say, I'm all for spending money on rail, but this looks like superfluous "window dressing" stuff to me, as a "greenwashing" sweetner for the Dunkettle project. Like the cycle infrastructure which isn't cycle infrastructure etc.

Any new links or major road changes to be opened before Christmas?

Looks like we are waiting on the completion of multiple flyovers so probably not.

Yeah, I made a mess of what I was trying to say at the start. I meant that there will be a train passing every 5 minutes so using a P&R will be much more attractive than it currently is so basing usage off the current LI station is pointless. Also, limiting space for cars in the city means people would be forced to look for an alternative. Providing that alternative in the form of a new P&R makes sense, both in terms of facilitating a change in habits and also providing additional capacity to handle the increase in cars. A P&R wouldn't be greenwashing, it would part of an overall approach to reducing cars in the city.

And Kilbarry or Carrigtohill West catering for multiples of the passengers is irrelevant. They would be stations build as part of major development and a new population who can walk/cycle to the station. The point of the P&R is to get people who cant walk/cycle to a station. Having less people use the P&R station than other stations would be a good thing, and for each car that uses it, thats one less car driving further to somewhere else.

You seem to be saying that the original Dunkettle station location would have been better because it was closer to the interchange, yet North Esk is not better than LI station despite being closer to the interchange. Bit of a contradiction there! Someone would have to drive 2km further to get to LI, plus then extra time on the train traveling back towards the city. It all adds up and contributes to the attractiveness of the service.

Ultimately as I've said, the proof of the final thing will be in the numbers.

I'm guess I'm just saying over and again, in different ways, that as a current user this is no more attractive to me than Little Island is. Maybe there's some demographic out there that can tell me 1.8km and 2mins each way will change their behaviour, but I just can't say I know those people! All of the other stuff around limiting cars in the city will be very valuable, but this new station...I can't see it. Just expand and upgrade Little Island, or go for Tivoli is my opinion.

I saw them tarring a road South of the n25w this morning which leads up towards the bridge where n25w to n40 traffic was re-routed under Monday.

Thought I was seeing things. IT must be a base layer which would be of assistance to construction traffic in winter.

Well the P&R would obviously only attract people who can use the train service to get to where they want to be, which would primarily be those going into the city centre, and for that journey the interchange upgrade doesn't allow for freeflow from the north so that isn't really a consideration. If you add to that restrictions for cars entering the city, a P&R at North Esk could be attractive.

There is limited space to expand the carpark at LI and paving over the green space could be difficult planning-wise and most likely would have to be bought. Tivoli is earmarked for a huge sustainable, modern redevelopment, putting a massive surface carpark there and telling lots of people to drive there is not compatible with plans for the site. Plus you'd have significant cost to provide access to there and it would be very difficult to make freeflow, without which there would likely be queuing entering and/or exiting the P&R. Both options could be more expensive than using the large container yard already in IÉ ownership.

On space at Little Island, its second car park remains almost totally empty every day. The third Little Island car park isn't even lined, and is used as a storage space for recycling units at present. There's no real shortage of space.

Look it will always be attractive to have more train stations in or near the urban area. And more development of sustainable transport. But as I keep saying I really don't see North Esk being a high-value proposition compared with the other rail projects in the Cork area. Even on the opposite side of the city a P&R at Blarney would be high-value.

I still see this one the way I see the "cycle infrastructure" at Dunkettle: a sub-optimal token gesture.

Video from todays update.

First video I’ve seen of the new alignment and there already is a lorry going M8 South to Tunnel blocking the junction.

A Truck driver mate of mine mentioned the same to me this afternoon, just barely enough length to fit one arctic between the roundabout road and the traffic lights. He said a road-train with a red light would definitely block traffic circulating on the roundabout.

Traveled n40 to n25 at just after 5pm today. Through in one change of the lights. Wouldn't have even needed to slow down if heading for the m8.

Is the final alignment on tunnel entrance going to be as tight as it is at the moment. Just where the retaining wall starts there’s a sudden turn to the left. Even at 60kph it all felt a bit sudden.

I looked online, but can anyone see what the final alignemnt of lanes planned for approach to and going into the tunnel?

There's 3 directions for traffic towards the tunnel, from Fermoy, Tivoli and Midleton.

Midleton and Tivoli approaches look like they'll be one lane each heading towards the tunnel, will the Fermoy approach be same? There's two lanes south on N8 currently, left lane goes East and right lane goes straight towrds tunnel I'd imagine?

Does the tunnel bound lane then merge with the traffic from Tivoli lane, into one lane, and go straight to the right lane of the tunnel?

That would leave the traffic from Midleton have a lane all to itself into the left tunnel lane without merging with anything.

There is actually traffic from four sources, the three you mention (Fermoy M8S, Tivoli N8E, Middleton N25W, and also from Little Island. The traffic from Little Island will exit the South Dumbbell Roundabout and merge with the traffic exiting the N25W (Middleton). Looking at the maps there is good space for this merge, but you'd have to wonder about the distance available for the Fermoy M8S and Tivoli N8E merge. In any event your overall point is correct, traffic from all these sources will have to reduce to two lanes by the time it reaches the tunnel mouth. A couple of posters have previously raised the prospect of a lot more lane changing in the tunnel in this context.