Angry Rebel

I’d bet my very nice hat, that the overwhelming majority of accidents on the old section of road were caused by driver error/stupidity or excessive speed. Driving at 100km/h on that road is safe, especially now with a reduced level of traffic. Driving at 150km/h is what causes more accidents.

I believe the answer to the diseconomies of scale of operating two terminals is to connect them and have no external access to the old terminal. All passengers would checkin in the new terminal, clear security there, and then go through a secure connection (to be built) to the old terminal. Arriving flights could also arrive through the old terminal. This may lead to pressure on checkin desks but that might encourage the handling agents/airlines to actually have them all open for once! How often do you see all open at once? Ever?!

Jungle – excellent post, agree completely. Apparently the priority within the CAA at the moment is the cargo village. Presumably because that creates the space for more passenger plane parking close to the terminal and creates the space to expand the terminal down onto where the cargo handling buildings currently stand.

@a boyle wrote:

well a 2+1 with slip roads on and off would certainly be much safer than other roads. And building such a road would a lot cheaper.

The reason i started this was to at least get somebody thinking . a easy billion is being spent building the road to cork. what other things might that have paid for ?

if the train had a very large capacity and was substantially faster than the road , how many would be left driving ?

Duilding a dualcarriage way does not future proof much at all, as i have repeatedly tried to explain. What it does is fuel the city sprawl, generating useless commuter traffic. I am not trying to blame the people who do

I presume when you say “other roads” you don’t include dual carriageways and motorways in that, because 2+1s are not safer than those roads. Of course building a DC will future proof it because until we invent personal magic flying saucers or whatever, roads will remain a primary means of transport and demand for them will only rise, the provision of decent rail links notwithstanding.

The N8/M8 is not just about people commuting to Dublin or Cork, it is traffic between the two and beyond (eg Belfast and North Leinster), particularly commercial and freight traffic. That residual traffic which will always remain even with an excellent train service, in addition to local traffic (eg the punter going from Cashel to Cahir), in addition to those who the train doesn’t suit will require roads of a higher capacity than a 2+1.

As has been pointed out above, 2+1s are not the brilliant system they were initially thought. IMHO they would be better off just creating 2+1s using line paint and not bothering with the barrier. The mere creation of the overtaking lane removes the vast majority of the overtaking that can cause accidents. This works extremely well in Australia. Physically preventing overtaking is a bit nannyish, and more expensive. It has been done on the N71 from Cork to Bandon between Innishannon and Bandon. They simply repainted the road to make the hard shoulder another traffic lane. Cheap, effective, simple. For the price of the paint that could be done throughout the country where conditions allow.

You keep harping on about Cork and Dublin not being able to take the traffic. That’s a good point, but it’s not a reason to not build DC/motorway between the two biggest population centres in the state. DC all the way could save drivers probably 3/4 hour, an hour or more at peak times. If that means spending 5 minutes more in traffic in Newlands Cross (not Naas, don’t know why you keep mentioning that) then you’re still 40 minutes quicker.

Now don’t start whinging about trains, everyone on this thread thinks more and better trains is a better idea, but they are not a magic bullet (in fact most Iarnroid Eireann services are a far cry from bullets…!) As for 2+1 roads, forget it. Insisting those are suitable for 1 of the busiest routes in the country is just retarded, and strips all your comments of any credibilty, including any good points that you do make.

Just replicated your search there, and it is amazing. What’s even odder about it is that it actually lists the “Arrow” services, which is the commuter one, but only from 11.30 onwards?!

Good old IE. Make it nice and hard for the poor paying public to find the train they want!

Eh, not quite. First train leaves Mallow at 07:00 and arrives in Cork at 07:24. They leave Mallow every half an hour after that until 09:11. Then it jumps to roughly hourly.

Suspect you may have been looking at the intercity schedule rather than the commuter schedule.

You didn’t say anything about nonstop? I’m sure if they can manage to bring in 200km/h trains they can manage to do nonstop services. Are you saying that timetable is the one that will apply then? Go away.:p

The 100,000 odd poor buggers who sit in the M50 car park every day don’t give a toss what the EIS said back in the day when that ill conceived thing was designed and built. Look, they got it wrong, and are only now trying to fix it. but don’t try and hold it up as an example of why motorways are “bad”.

On the M3, there are currently 18k per day using the N3 by Tara. That’s heavy enough. Agree the N9 now would be another story….

@THE_Chris wrote:

By the way, the M7/M8 interchange near Portlaoise will be 120kmh motorway. The N8 dual carriageways being built will not be motorway officially, but will probobly be 120kmh under the new rules. Its just a change of label for the farmers, as they cant drive on motorways.

Yes its totally stupid, but it makes little difference in the end.

Hopefully common sense will prevail (something I was afraid was absent round here today but the last two posts have reassured me that it isn’t! 😀 )

What do the unions have to say about trains doing 200km/h? Surely we’ll see more stoppages and the travelling public held to ransom because the lads want more dough for actually providing a 21st century service!?

😡 At the risk of being censored….but I reckon you’re just trying to wind me up now……

@a boyle wrote:

1 yes you can’t do an average of 70 km/h anywhere.

Bullshit. What about Cork – Fermoy? Fermoy – Mitchelstown? Mitchelstown – Cahir? Portlaoise – Dublin?

@a boyle wrote:

With between portaiose and fermoy a single direct 2+1 road which skirts each town and village would provide enough space for the amount of cars using the road.

Bullshit. Do you have the slightest idea of the volume of commerical and passenger traffic using that road.

@a boyle wrote:

a small number of cases you might build a roundabout

Bullshit. There should NEVER be a roundabout on a major interurban route like that. Why are we obsessed with roundabouts in Ireland?

@a boyle wrote:

It would have allowed for a realistic 90km/h between portaloise and cork.

Bullshit. The NRA are aiming for a 96km/h average using dual carriageways and motorways. How do you think you’d get 90 using 2+1s?

@a boyle wrote:

2 yes lots of people fly but at tremendous cost. these people should be getting a really good train. i know of nowhere else where this is replicated.

Bullshit. I’ve regularly flown for 1 cent (plus taxes). Even the more expensive fares are better value that Citygold. You can get a seat with Ryanair for next Wednesday (I’d call that reasonably short notice for 9.99 each way. You don’t get allocated a specific seat, but you won’t be sitting in the aisle like our poor rail travellers.

I think these interurbans should be prioritised, but I think it’s wrong that it’s to the extent that public transport doesn’t get what it needs. But you? You think rail should be a bottomless pit at the expense of roads, airports and all other useful forms of transport!

@a boyle wrote:

there is no difference between them (almost). It has to do with designation. dual carriage ways can accomodate farming equipment. Not a big deal. Motorways also have to follow very strict criteria which are considerably looser for dual carriage ways.

I’d rather do 120km/h than 100km/h!! That’s where the impact on the travelling public is. Dual carriageways should not be allowed have farm equipment on them, so many of them use a lane rather than the hard shoulder and are very dangerous. In 99% of the cases where there is a dual carriageway, there is also an alternative route which was fine for agri machinery before the DC was built (eg. every dual carriageway out of Cork city).

I realise there are different design criteria for motorways, which is as it should be, as doing 120km/h requires better sight lines etc and a whole load of other fac tors…..but my point is why didn’t they design and build it as a motorway?