M40 motorway redesignation and demand management system [works ongoing]

marno21

I've started a thread on widening the Douglas flyover here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058042716

Markcheese

marno21 wrote: »

I've started a thread on widening the Douglas flyover here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058042716

Isn't there a house or 2 right next the flyover on the east bound side ? I know there's an entrance way right next to the bridge ...

hans aus dtschl

I don't think we should widen the Douglas flyover for a few reasons:
1: It still leaves the N40 South as a single point of failure, the N40 North is still needed
2: The majority of peak traffic is single-occupant commuters which we need to remove from the system urgently. Providing more capacity is counter-productive to this.
3: Cost - it's a relatively densely built area at present, increasing project cost.
4: Noise, quality of life and resulting objections - it's a relatively densely populated area at present. Larger traffic volume on the road will not be ideal.

Better to get on with M40 North and the Northern/Southern distributors from CMATS

marno21

First VMS sign in place now eastbound at the Bloomfield Interchange. Went in during the week

blindsider

Another installed Eastbound after the Wilton on-ramp..

kub

EnzoScifo wrote: »

They are installing Automatic Licence plate recognition cameras as well. Make of that what you will.

They sure are and so far they are fitted on poles at the overpass of The Bishopstown Roundabout and The KRR, viewing the N40 itself.


Also at the KRR they are fitted on poles at the N40 East and West approches to the actual roundabout.

cantalach

kub wrote: »

They sure are and so far they are fitted on poles at the overpass of The Bishopstown Roundabout and The KRR, viewing the N40 itself.

Also at the KRR they are fitted on poles at the N40 East and West approches to the actual roundabout.

Do you have a reliable source for the claim that the cameras perform number plate recognition? Collecting that data would serve no current purpose given that it is not being used for road charging or traffic law enforcement purposes. A number plate is PII and collecting any PII without a strong justification for doing so runs counter to the prevailing mood in most large businesses and government bodies. Organisations must not collect PII on the off chance they find something useful to do with it at some point in the future.

marno21

The ANPR is used to rear registration plates to measure journey times along the route.

The registration plates are just used to differentiate between vehicles rather than identifying individual vehicles

cantalach

marno21 wrote: »

The ANPR is used to rear registration plates to measure journey times along the route.

The registration plates are just used to differentiate between vehicles rather than identifying individual vehicles

So there is no requirement to retain data for more than say, one hour. In fact it’s not even necessary to use the reg number at all. The number could be hashed at source and the hash rather than the actual number used to correlate between different gantries. Any idea if a data retention policy been published? I feel a mail to the Data Commissioner coming on.

marno21

cantalach wrote: »

So there is no requirement to retain data for more than say, one hour. In fact it’s not even necessary to use the reg number at all. The number could be hashed at source and the hash rather than the actual number used to correlate between different gantries. Any idea if a data retention policy been published? I feel a mail to the Data Commissioner coming on.

I would imagine that what's rolled out in Cork will be a carbon copy of the system used on the M50 and approach roads in Dublin.

AugustusMinimus

There another one of the Glanmire bypass going north about 1/2 mile before the Glanmire exit.

NedNew2

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

There another one of the Glanmire bypass going north about 800m before the Glanmire exit.

I think there is another a few km before Fermoy northbound.

kub

cantalach wrote: »

Do you have a reliable source for the claim that the cameras perform number plate recognition?

I know a thing or two about CCTV

cantalach

kub wrote: »

I know a thing or two about CCTV

And I know a thing or two about data security

kub

cantalach wrote: »

And I know a thing or two about data security

They would have their hands full so with the 2 of us .


I noticed another 2 today, one of the infamous South Link Road ( yes the actual one ) on that lay by, inbound approx 100 meters before the Boreenmanna Road junction.


The other one is approx 20 meters after the roundabout at Shanbally on the N28, heading towards Ringaskiddy.

marno21

Not a word about motorway reclassification in some time now.

Was heading west on the N40 after the Togher exit there. 2 tractors in the middle lane about 500m apart heading for the Wilton exit. Cars passing the tractors on either side and lots of braking and traffic in general moving at about 60km/h.

The N40 is simply too busy for this carry on. Same job with cyclists on this stretch which has no hard shoulder. It’s simply too busy. I do understand that cycling facilities in this area are not up to scratch either, which badly needs addressing. There’s a greenway between J4 and J6 which could get an upgrade and might help wirh some of it.

A motorway order can’t come quick enough.

kub

marno21 wrote: »

Not a word about motorway reclassification in some time now.

Was heading west on the N40 after the Togher exit there. 2 tractors in the middle lane about 500m apart heading for the Wilton exit. Cars passing the tractors on either side and lots of braking and traffic in general moving at about 60km/h.

The N40 is simply too busy for this carry on. Same job with cyclists on this stretch which has no hard shoulder. It’s simply too busy. I do understand that cycling facilities in this area are not up to scratch either, which badly needs addressing. There’s a greenway between J4 and J6 which could get an upgrade and might help wirh some of it.

A motorway order can’t come quick enough.

Agreed it is downright dangerous for all concerned.

There may not be any updates but the works are ongoing in that from what I can see all of the screens are now fitted on all of the gantries.

AugustusMinimus

marno21 wrote: »

Not a word about motorway reclassification in some time now.

Was heading west on the N40 after the Togher exit there. 2 tractors in the middle lane about 500m apart heading for the Wilton exit. Cars passing the tractors on either side and lots of braking and traffic in general moving at about 60km/h.

The N40 is simply too busy for this carry on. Same job with cyclists on this stretch which has no hard shoulder. It’s simply too busy. I do understand that cycling facilities in this area are not up to scratch either, which badly needs addressing. There’s a greenway between J4 and J6 which could get an upgrade and might help wirh some of it.

A motorway order can’t come quick enough.

Made these points on various fora over the years. Some of the responses noted that pedestrians and cyclists alike have a right to be there. Crazy.

Treehelpplease

I was driving in from Carrigaline and noticed most of the screens on the big things are up, at least in the city: Maryborough Hill, Bloomfield, by the N40, N27 out of the city centre. Nice to seee. I wonder when they will turn them on

cantalach

Treehelpplease wrote: »

I was driving in from Carrigaline and noticed most of the screens on the big things are up, at least in the city: Maryborough Hill, Bloomfield, by the N40, N27 out of the city centre. Nice to seee. I wonder when they will turn them on

The ANPR part of the system is due to become operational in September at the earliest. Not sure if the signs will be displaying other info before then.

Treehelpplease

Will it just be Dunkettle info?

Chris_5339762

Nah, it'll be a more accurate version of the numbers given on the Dunkettle Traffic website, and presumably any information like "hay baler load spill - Douglas Viaduct".

hans aus dtschl

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Made these points on various fora over the years. Some of the responses noted that pedestrians and cyclists alike have a right to be there. Crazy.

For many, the reason is lack of a suitable alternative. I've never cycled it (and don't ever want to) but I know people who cycle between (for instance) south of the KRR and Ovens.

N40 is flat and direct with hard shoulders and a smooth surface for the most part. It's 100kmh.
A southbound diversion adds at least 25% extra distance, hills, loads more junctions and a poor surface. Still 100kmh traffic.
A northbound diversion adds at least 25% extra distance, hills, huge amount of junctions and a significantly worse surface. It goes through town and Ballincollig.

I cycle quite a lot, but I'd typically cycle significant distances just to avoid that whole area. There's no good options there at all. As far as I'm concerned it's a no-cycle zone.

Edit: just an extra detail, but non-cyclists don't always understand what a cycling deterrent it is, to have to stop/start: it's energy sapping.
Most of the newer schemes currently being commissioned by the two Cork Councils have a good surface and are quite legible, but fail badly on the stop/start side of things. This is almost a "non-issue" in a motorised vehicle, but a significant issue on a bicycle.
In the context of this post, it may seem like a "minor detail" that there's more junctions and a worse surface on the alternative routes, but it can be significant.

cantalach

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

For many, the reason is lack of a suitable alternative. I've never cycled it (and don't ever want to) but I know people who cycle between (for instance) south of the KRR and Ovens.

N40 is flat and direct with hard shoulders and a smooth surface for the most part. It's 100kmh.
A southbound diversion adds at least 25% extra distance, hills, loads more junctions and a poor surface. Still 100kmh traffic.
A northbound diversion adds at least 25% extra distance, hills, huge amount of junctions and a significantly worse surface. It goes through town and Ballincollig.

I cycle quite a lot, but I'd typically cycle significant distances just to avoid that whole area. There's no good options there at all. As far as I'm concerned it's a no-cycle zone.

Edit: just an extra detail, but non-cyclists don't always understand what a cycling deterrent it is, to have to stop/start: it's energy sapping.
Most of the newer schemes currently being commissioned by the two Cork Councils have a good surface and are quite legible, but fail badly on the stop/start side of things. This is almost a "non-issue" in a motorised vehicle, but a significant issue on a bicycle.
In the context of this post, it may seem like a "minor detail" that there's more junctions and a worse surface on the alternative routes, but it can be significant.

Until about 5 years ago I regularly cycled the Ballincollig Bypass and N40 as fas as Douglas. Other direction too. Then I got spooked by something horrible that happened and stopped. Now I think I must have been mental.

But I completely agree with the above. Some of the new “cycling friendly” developments are anything but. The work done recently at the Shannon Park Roundabout just north of Carrigaline is a joke. I know a *lot* of cyclists and none would use the new bike lanes there. The designers expect cyclists potentially travelling at speed to divert off the main traffic lane (in which they are equals under the law) and onto a badly cambered bike lane which must then yield to vehicles in the main traffic lane they have just left. It is obvious that no cyclists had any part in the design of that. Somebody who cycles 2km at 15 kph twice a year is not a cyclist for purposes of this discussion. It is the daily commuters and club cyclists who need a say.

hans aus dtschl

It's the same story the whole time, unfortunately: a "token effort", and the follow-up "sher nobody uses it". Another simple detail - segregation of cyclists and pedestrians - is opposed by the TII. The mindset is very much "get slow moving things out of the way".

In the context of the N40, t'd be reasonably straightforward to provide at least one good quality E-W pedestrian/cycle corridor, potentially even two (one following the old rail alignment, one beside the N40 itself). You don't really even need an "M" status to remove cyclists because most don't want to be on there in the first place and you can use a by-law like the Tunnel has.

But tractors and other slow moving machinery is a whole different story. I still don't understand what an "M" status will do with them, other than send them through the city centre. That makes this another "get slow moving things out of our way" plan as far as I can see it.

Markcheese

I'm open to correction but , there is some kind of path from Brandon road roundabout to sarsfield road ,there's a path on the other side of the n40 to togher ,then a gap ... The city owns the tramore valley park pretty much to Douglas ,then a gap and theres a path from Bloomfield to mahon , and then a path all the way past the tunnel to black rock castle ,
And considering that path links up with old black rock railway ,in a few spots it could be an amazing transport link for the entire south side ....

hans aus dtschl

Markcheese wrote: »

I'm open to correction but , there is some kind of path from Brandon road roundabout to sarsfield road ,there's a path on the other side of the n40 to togher ,then a gap ... The city owns the tramore valley park pretty much to Douglas ,then a gap and theres a path from Bloomfield to mahon , and then a path all the way past the tunnel to black rock castle ,
And considering that path links up with old black rock railway ,in a few spots it could be an amazing transport link for the entire south side ....

Yep that's exactly what I was alluding to. There's options there alright, but nobody driving the project forward. It could be a fairly transformative transport corridor. Great, with my "cyclist" and "pedestrian" hats on.

But we're left with the uncomfortable "tractors" discussion.

Chris_5339762

Markcheese wrote: »

I'm open to correction but , there is some kind of path from Brandon road roundabout to sarsfield road ,there's a path on the other side of the n40 to togher ,then a gap ... The city owns the tramore valley park pretty much to Douglas ,then a gap and theres a path from Bloomfield to mahon , and then a path all the way past the tunnel to black rock castle ,
And considering that path links up with old black rock railway ,in a few spots it could be an amazing transport link for the entire south side ....

Theres a tunnel under the N40 that links it up, I THINK, but this is not a cycle path and probably can't be as it easily floods.

cantalach

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Yep that's exactly what I was alluding to. There's options there alright, but nobody driving the project forward. It could be a fairly transformative transport corridor. Great, with my "cyclist" and "pedestrian" hats on.

Here's a typical section of freeway in Perth, Australia. To the left of the picture you can see the segregated bike path which runs along most of its length. In a small number of places where a quiet residential street runs parallel to the freeway the bike route will follow the street but everywhere else it is segregated. And, crucially, where there is an intersection between the freeway and another road, the segregated bike path goes under or over the entire thing. Cyclists get a largely uninterrupted journey from one end of the commute to the other, which was about 25km in my case.



On the subject of separating pedestrians from cyclists, here's another sat view of Perth. This is from the CBD foreshore where pedestrian density is higher. You'll notice that (going top-to-bottom) there is three-way segregation of cars, bikes, and pedestrians.

hans aus dtschl

cantalach wrote: »

Here's a typical section of freeway in Perth, Australia. To the left of the picture you can see the segregated bike path which runs along most of its length. In a small number of places where a quiet residential street runs parallel to the freeway the bike route will follow the street but everywhere else it is segregated. And, crucially, where there is an intersection between the freeway and another road, the segregated bike path goes under or over the entire thing. Cyclists get a largely uninterrupted journey from one end of the commute to the other, which was about 25km in my case.

On the subject of separating pedestrians from cyclists, here's another sat view of Perth. This is from the CBD foreshore where pedestrian density is higher. You'll notice that (going top-to-bottom) there is three-way segregation of cars, bikes, and pedestrians.

Yep, I've seen exactly the same type of design in the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Germany, where it works well. Not a significant cost at the initial build but hard to achieve for the N40 now. In this "dream" infrastructure scenario, cyclists shouldn't ever want to be on the N40.

Again though, farm and other heavy machinery are the elephant in the room. I can see how to sort out the pedestrians and cyclists but I've no idea how to sort them.

quietsailor

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Again though, farm and other heavy machinery are the elephant in the room. I can see how to sort out the pedestrians and cyclists but I've no idea how to sort them.

You never can unless another ring road is built outside the city taking the majority of traffic passing Cork (Ie not local) off the current N40. That'd allow the speed limits to be reduced on the N40 & it to be used for local use mainly and also farm vehicles can travel it.

Thats a multi-billion answer though so I can't see it happening

hans aus dtschl

quietsailor wrote: »

You never can unless another ring road is built outside the city taking the majority of traffic passing Cork (Ie not local) off the current N40. That'd allow the speed limits to be reduced on the N40 & it to be used for local use mainly and also farm vehicles can travel it.

Thats a multi-billion answer though so I can't see it happening

I think their plan is actually the other way around: they're aiming to make the N40 the strategic "bypass" route, by calling it M40. They then hope in the future to provide another (ie. other local/distributor) route south of the existing road.

I actually agree with you and I think that they're wrong:
1. I think they need to close a few junctions (like at Douglas) in order to succeed.
2. I don't think they can reasonably create a strategic bypass route without making a secondary distributor route available, something will inherently become that secondary distributor route by default.
3. I don't think routing a strategic bypass through such a now-urban area is ideal from a noise/pollution perspective.
Luckily, I've the luxury of being able to be wrong about all this

There's other possibilities, like the A2/N2 through Maastricht, which cost around a billion euro for 2.3km, but I don't think it's realistic or necessary for Cork.

But in short, I don't think "M40" is going to solve the problem, just send it elsewhere.

riddlinrussell

quietsailor wrote: »

You never can unless another ring road is built outside the city taking the majority of traffic passing Cork (Ie not local) off the current N40. That'd allow the speed limits to be reduced on the N40 & it to be used for local use mainly and also farm vehicles can travel it.

Thats a multi-billion answer though so I can't see it happening

Apologies from a non-Corkonian, but where/why is there enough farm machinery on the N40 to be a problem? Where is it coming from/going to?

hans aus dtschl

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Apologies from a non-Corkonian, but where/why is there enough farm machinery on the N40 to be a problem? Where is it coming from/going to?

I don't know anyone who does it, so just guessing but I suspect:

Some is using the tunnel to avoid the city, making a journey from East-West or North-South. These could be contractor "crews" and the like, moving from working in one area to another, could be farmers be transporting fodder, could farmers be transporting small numbers of animals, could be transporting smaller pieces of equipment, etc. The mart in Fermoy and teagasc at Rathcormac are possibly a source of some such traffic but I know for sure that there are agri businesses selling equipment dotted around Little Island, Carrigtohill and Midleton (trailers, etc).

Some (I suspect a minority) would also be travelling directly between the southside areas like Rochestown/Passage/Ovens/Curraheen.

Again, purely guesswork, I've never seen a full end-to-end journey, no matter how bad the tailback!

Markcheese

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Apologies from a non-Corkonian, but where/why is there enough farm machinery on the N40 to be a problem? Where is it coming from/going to?

There's some ... You do see tractors and diggers on the road , but even when it's a motorway anything that's legally capable of doing over 50 kph is entitled to use it ... Anything else will either have to take another route (legally) ,or be put on a trailer of another tractor capable of doing 50 or over ,- or a lorry -
Prior to the tunnel and south ring very little farm machinary traveled east west or vice versa , cos it would have been a pain going through the city ...

To be honest I wouldn't worry about it too much ,
Give the bikes and pedestrians somewhere to go , get the slower moving tractors and diggers off the road ..

Chris_5339762

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Apologies from a non-Corkonian, but where/why is there enough farm machinery on the N40 to be a problem? Where is it coming from/going to?

The trouble with the N40 is that it is the only sensible way to get from one side of Cork to the other.


There is no route of any description from Watergrasshill say, to the north, over to Ballincollig in the West. You either go through the very center of the city (actually very hard now that Patricks Street is bus only, not to mention very poor roads in the entire southwest quadrant of the city, or you take the N40.


There is literally no other way. If you look at a map and how to get between towns in Cork county, the sheer amount that funnels down the N40 is staggering.

marno21

The tunnel is closed tonight, first night I’ve seen the new VMS signs in use notifying drivers. Signs active at J6 eastbound, J9 eastbound and westbound on the N25 between J4 and J3 with the message “Jack Lynch Tunnel Closed 21:00 - 04:00”

Mushy

marno21 wrote: »

The tunnel is closed tonight, first night I’ve seen the new VMS signs in use notifying drivers. Signs active at J6 eastbound, J9 eastbound and westbound on the N25 between J4 and J3 with the message “Jack Lynch Tunnel Closed 21:00 - 04:00”

I saw a sign yesterday saying its contraflow. The temporary one down by the interchange, think that's where it was

blindsider

Saw these being tested on Tuesday - I didn't know the text is capable of multiple colours (rank amateur here) - will this functionality be used, or just plain orange?

Great to see them in use....finally!

alaimacerc

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I think their plan is actually the other way around: they're aiming to make the N40 the strategic "bypass" route, by calling it M40. They then hope in the future to provide another (ie. other local/distributor) route south of the existing road.

That sounds pretty strange, all right! Just how far south would it be? Squeezed in between the built-up area and the airport? South of the airport? And how much sense would it make as a distributor on that basis?

Hibernicis

alaimacerc wrote: »

That sounds pretty strange, all right! Just how far south would it be? Squeezed in between the built-up area and the airport? South of the airport? And how much sense would it make as a distributor on that basis?

There is an indicative route for this road, known as the “southern distributor road” included in CMATS. It runs from Rochestown/Douglas through Frankfield and on to the Sarsfield Road in Togher. It’s a great idea that has something close to zero chance of being built on the proposed alignment. You can see the indicative line of the road in the on Page 88 of the CMATS document (page 92 of the PDF) Try this link

The following is the text relating to this route in the CMATS document

Southern Distributor Road
The N40 is the focus for a significant proportion of east-west trips in the Cork City- South Environs area. The over-reliance on the N40 for private vehicle trips allied to limited sustainable transport connectivity has resulted in significant congestion at several pinch-points including Douglas Village and the Kinsale Road Roundabout.
To address the significant shortfall in local connectivity in the Southern Environs area, CMATS has identified the requirement for a more comprehensive, multi-modal Southern Distributor Road (SDR).

The SDR will necessitate the upgrade of the existing route and the creation of a new road link between Rochestown and Sarsfield Road, via the Carrigaline Road, Grange Road and Airport Road, and a proposed new link between the N27 and Sarsfield Road. The road will ultimately provide the basis for the Southern Outer Orbital bus route connecting Rochestown with CIT whilst also enabling interchange with radial bus routes.

As with the Cork Northern Distributor Road, the SDR will provide dedicated walking and cycling infrastructure and support planned residential development in the South Environs area. The SDR will support local transport access facilitating a reduction in the N40’s use for local trips and its upgrade to motorway status. It is anticipated that the SDR would be developed on an incremental basis.

kub

blindsider wrote: »

Saw these being tested on Tuesday - I didn't know the text is capable of multiple colours (rank amateur here) - will this functionality be used, or just plain orange?

Great to see them in use....finally!

I saw the one between the Togher on ramp and KRR off ramp activated on Friday warning of planned tunnel works.
The writing was in Yellow on a Black background.

I imagine that in this day and age that different degrees of warnings on them will be in different colours.

alaimacerc

Hibernicis wrote: »

There is an indicative route for this road, known as the “southern distributor road” included in CMATS. It runs from Rochestown/Douglas through Frankfield and on to the Sarsfield Road in Togher. It’s a great idea that has something close to zero chance of being built on the proposed alignment. You can see the indicative line of the road in the on Page 88 of the CMATS document (page 92 of the PDF) Try this link

The following is the text relating to this route in the CMATS document

Huh. Thanks, interesting reading. Ambitious document; by the time they got to page 92, evidently they were well into the swing of a project for everyone in the audience!

That particular route looks to pretty much be Greater Grange Road. Knock through a little at the east, and about 1.5km of extension to the west...

Looking at the overall route map, I wonder if the more strategic option might have been leaving the South Ring as N road, and making the North one, as new-build, the motorway segment.

Chris_5339762

I'd hazard a very strong guess that the full NRR (if it ever gets built) or the M8 - M20 part (if it ever gets built) will be motorway from the get-go.

Treehelpplease

Does anyone know when this will be done? All of the railings on the road over Douglas and by Mahon were replaced over the last few months. it also seems some by Bloomfield are being done now. The gantries seem done too. Is there much more they need to do to make this the M40? It took six months to change all the old N25 signs to N40 so I wonder if this will be similar. As well as that, as the boundary has been extended, I expect they'll change a lot of the "CORK" or "CORK (Centre)" signage to "City Centre" (hopefully). Will any slip roads need to be closed first?

cantalach

Treehelpplease wrote: »

Does anyone know when this will be done? All of the railings on the road over Douglas and by Mahon were replaced over the last few months. it also seems some by Bloomfield are being done now. The gantries seem done too. Is there much more they need to do to make this the M40? It took six months to change all the old N25 signs to N40 so I wonder if this will be similar. As well as that, as the boundary has been extended, I expect they'll change a lot of the "CORK" or "CORK (Centre)" signage to "City Centre" (hopefully). Will any slip roads need to be closed first?

It’s not just a matter of changing signs and road markings. A motorway has a legal status and requires a statutory instrument in the form of a motorway order. No doubt there is some sort of consultation process that has to be followed in advance of that (unless that has already happened somehow?).

KrisW1001

I really don't see any benefit from changing the signs to blue ones, especially when you look into how much these signs actually cost. That money could be better used on re-lining and repairs of other N-roads in Cork County.

To be clear: I'm not saying anything against the other measures that were put in place, but all that work has exactly the same benefits regardless of whether the road is named "N40" or "M40" on signage. I can't help thinking that this is all a case of "Dublin's ring road is a Motorway, so..."

It's all very well to say it'll bar agricultural vehicles from the road*, but where else would they go? It's not like there are multiple, easily accessible crossings of the River Lee they could use instead of the tunnel. I would not thank the council for re-routing tractors through the city centre just so they can say that their city has a blue line around it on the map...

(* actually it mightn't even do that. As long as a vehicle can do 50 km/h, it's allowed on a motorway)

AugustusMinimus

KrisW1001 wrote: »

I really don't see any benefit from changing the signs to blue ones, especially when you look into how much these signs actually cost. That money could be better used on re-lining and repairs of other N-roads in Cork County.

To be clear: I'm not saying anything against the other measures that were put in place, but all that work has exactly the same benefits regardless of whether the road is named "N40" or "M40" on signage. I can't help thinking that this is all a case of "Dublin's ring road is a Motorway, so..."

It's all very well to say it'll bar agricultural vehicles from the road*, but where else would they go? It's not like there are multiple, easily accessible crossings of the River Lee they could use instead of the tunnel. I would not thank the council for re-routing tractors through the city centre just so they can say that their city has a blue line around it on the map...

(* actually it mightn't even do that. As long as a vehicle can do 50 km/h, it's allowed on a motorway)

Cyclists should not be on any section of the N40 without a hard shoulder IMO. Incredibly dangerous.

I’ve seen cyclists on such section a few times during peak hours and it caused chaos.

marno21

I've seen 3 near pileups recently on the N40 and N25 because of tractors on the route. Alternative routes aside, orbital urban motorways (or motorway grade roads) are no place for slow moving traffic such as tractors. They're not allowed on the M50 in Dublin, M7 in Limerick etc.

I would prioritise motorway restrictions on the N25 ahead of the N40. There's a clear alternative route to the N25 from Dunkettle to Barryscourt (and in future to Oatencake near Midleton) and the speed differential is bigger there with the mainline being 120km/h. It's a disaster waiting to happen when there's tractors along there when the route is busy.

It's now 3 years since this motorway reclassification study commenced. Something must be holding it up.

Treehelpplease

I imagine it would affect the driving test centre too. A big part for a lot of the routess is using the N40 to get to Togher, Bishopstown or back from the mini roundabout by the industrial part of Togher. If learners can't go on the road, how can they practise the road for the test. Or can they even go on it on the test.