Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

M20 - Cork to Limerick [preferred route chosen; in design - phase 3]

Options
1…6061636566…276

Comments

  • Options
    #1862
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Vanquished wrote: »
    The existing Croom bypass is to be reconfigured with only a short new build section skirting around the Maigue bridge.

    That road is WS2 and only dates from 2001 so it would be madness not to utilise it!
    Not only that but it's also grade seperated. I assume back in 2001 south of (https://www.google.ie/maps/place/52°33'02.2"N+8°43'46.4"W) was built offline and north of there was widened online? (this being the junction with the old N20 through Croom).

    Pity about that Maigue bridge as it's on a straight seciton which will now have to be curved


  • Options
    #1863
    Cookiemunster
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,805 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    Vanquished wrote: »
    The existing Croom bypass is to be reconfigured with only a short new build section skirting around the Maigue bridge.

    That road is WS2 and only dates from 2001 so it would be madness not to utilise it!

    Remember that that was the last plan which also had the Adare bypass joining the M20 South of Adare. That plan has now been binned. There is to be a completely new planning process so the route could change.


  • Options
    #1864
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Cookiemunster wrote: »
    Remember that that was the last plan which also had the Adare bypass joining the M20 South of Adare. That plan has now been binned. There is to be a completely new planning process so the route could change.
    Hopefully the new route also includes even a compact junction with the R515. If not a sizable amount of traffic that goes R515E -> N20N will be forced through Charleville town. The current R515/N20 junction in Charleville town is also dangerous as the R515 road along there is barely wide enough for 2 cars.

    Pity that foolish Adare bypass plan was ever bundled in with this project, not sure who thought it would work. Stupid from the beginning.

    The Croom bypass will surely be included. No point in buying up all that extra land when the Croom bypass is 15m+ wide and is also grade seperated. That road being redesignated an R/L road would be laughable.


  • Options
    #1865
    Vanquished
    Registered Users Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭Vanquished


    Cookiemunster wrote: »
    Remember that that was the last plan which also had the Adare bypass joining the M20 South of Adare. That plan has now been binned. There is to be a completely new planning process so the route could change.

    That's true but I don't think the dropping of that ill-advised Adare southern bypass plan will radically alter the alignment of a future M20. There's only a short distance between the end of the Croom bypass and the existing M20 to the north. An M20/M21 interchange is still likely to be built in the general Attyflin area eventually.

    We'll get a clearer picture when the preferred route for Limerick to Foynes is released.


  • Options
    #1866
    zulutango
    Registered Users Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭zulutango


    Vanquished wrote: »
    We'll get a clearer picture when the preferred route for Limerick to Foynes is released.

    Seems they have their sights set on upgrading the N69 rather than the N21. Madness.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1867
    Cookiemunster
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,805 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    zulutango wrote: »
    Seems they have their sights set on upgrading the N69 rather than the N21. Madness.

    It's not madness. The EU are paying to replace the N69 as part of their 10T program. It's not coming from government funds and the EU has said that it has to be done.
    Cleverly though 2 of the proposed routes for the N69 upgrade a large section of the N21 and 3 of them bypass Adare.


  • Options
    #1868
    zulutango
    Registered Users Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭zulutango


    Cookiemunster wrote: »
    It's not madness. The EU are paying to replace the N69 as part of their 10T program. It's not coming from government funds and the EU has said that it has to be done.
    Cleverly though 2 of the proposed routes for the N69 upgrade a large section of the N21 and 3 of them bypass Adare.

    That's not true as far as I know. Can you show me evidence that the N69 is part of Ten-T? I mean, evidence not emanating from LCCC.


  • Options
    #1869
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    AFAIK Foynes port has to have a roads upgrade as part of Ten-T. They are upgrading the N69 to do this, but in an extremely rare bit of common sense, all of the proposed routes (apart from one) are basically an Adare bypass with a spur heading off to Foynes.


  • Options
    #1870
    Reputable Rog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭Reputable Rog


    zulutango wrote: »
    Seems they have their sights set on upgrading the N69 rather than the N21. Madness.

    No choice, EU directive.


  • Options
    #1871
    tippsean
    Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭tippsean


    zulutango wrote: »
    Not having looked closely at the route, how necessary is the tunnel through the Galtees, and how long would that tunnel be?

    I think your points are very good. Do you know if this route was looked at during the planning stage and if it was, do you know why it wasn't the favoured route?

    We seem to have a habit in Ireland of building motorways along existing routes. It's as if we see them as upgrades of these old roads, when in reality they should be so much more than that.

    It seems that at the original time of planning for our motorways the NRA had lots of money, and being smart about road design wasn't top of the agenda. So no alternatives to the M20 were considered. But now that infrastructure expenditure is being more closely scrutinised I am hoping that the NRA look at all options, and also look to other more experienced countries for guidance on road planning.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1872
    tippsean
    Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭tippsean


    zulutango wrote: »
    There's tunnels all over Europe linking places that aren't big population centres. In any case, we should really be asking why Limerick and Cork aren't big population centres at the moment. Arguably the woeful connection between the two is one of the major reasons, coupled with, of course, the very myopic all roads lead to Dublin policy pursued by every government in the history of the State. Further to that, if we have any sense of planning in this country we should be looking at developing other population centres and the motorway network should be built with that in mind. Seeing it simply as a road improvement between two small cities is just all wrong.

    I agree, in any case the tunnelling that would be required through small parts of the Galtees would be minimal. Moreover, that composition of the rock in the Galtees is nothing like the solid material of the Pyrennees. The Galtees are made up of broken stone. The tunnels that would be required would be in the region of .5km and 1km. And again, there are already minor road networks in place through the Galtees that could be developed.


  • Options
    #1873
    tippsean
    Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭tippsean


    zulutango wrote: »
    There's tunnels all over Europe linking places that aren't big population centres. In any case, we should really be asking why Limerick and Cork aren't big population centres at the moment. Arguably the woeful connection between the two is one of the major reasons, coupled with, of course, the very myopic all roads lead to Dublin policy pursued by every government in the history of the State. Further to that, if we have any sense of planning in this country we should be looking at developing other population centres and the motorway network should be built with that in mind. Seeing it simply as a road improvement between two small cities is just all wrong.
    bk wrote: »
    Yes, when I hear tunnel, I hear $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Tunnels are expensive, they only build tunnels in the Alps because they have no other choice, but they still end up costing big money.

    I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if tunnelling it would end up costing more then just building two separate motorways.

    Specially when you consider you still have to bypass Mallow, Buttevant, etc.

    Another thing to consider is that by having two separate roads, you can have two separate projects, thus you can string them both out over a longer period of time. For instance two separate cheaper roads build one after the other over 10 years, versus one more expensive project (due to tunnel) built over 5 years. The former is much easier on the capital budget.

    I'm not saying it isn't a good idea, but I would really want to see the costings of the two different options.

    But to be honest, I'd rather they forget about delaying things for years and just get started on the bloody M20.

    We have to ask ourselves about why in the first place the towns of Mallow, Buttevant, Charleville etc have to be bypassed, isn't it because of all the traffic currently going through them that would be removed by a motorway. So if motorways were built from Mitchelstown to Limerick instead of an M20, then the traffic that is causing the problems in the towns would be gone.....would big bypasses still be necessary, maybe, but not nearly as big or as expensive as the ones being discussed her.e


  • Options
    #1874
    Leonard Hofstadter
    Registered Users Posts: 5,540 ✭✭✭Leonard Hofstadter


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    AFAIK Foynes port has to have a roads upgrade as part of Ten-T. They are upgrading the N69 to do this, but in an extremely rare bit of common sense, all of the proposed routes (apart from one) are basically an Adare bypass with a spur heading off to Foynes.

    Indeed, this is a rare example of common sense in action, bypassing Adare and upgrading a good part of the N21 (one of the routes will go more or less from Foynes to Rathkeale as far as I know and then run close to the existing N21 thereafter), and all of it coming from the EU's money! It's a genius idea really, especially as a bypass of Adare is so badly needed.


  • Options
    #1875
    Subpopulus
    Registered Users Posts: 837 ✭✭✭Subpopulus


    tippsean wrote: »
    I agree, in any case the tunnelling that would be required through small parts of the Galtees would be minimal. Moreover, that composition of the rock in the Galtees is nothing like the solid material of the Pyrennees. The Galtees are made up of broken stone. The tunnels that would be required would be in the region of .5km and 1km. And again, there are already minor road networks in place through the Galtees that could be developed.

    The Galtees are made up of broken stone? Really? Are they mounds of gravel or something? Basically I'm implying that you have a very facile understanding of geology, because the Galtees are nothing of the sort.

    Even if the Galtees were made up of 'broken stone', then that would negate your argument. Tunelling through shattered rock and fault zones is incredibly difficult as the tunnel walls are often unable to support their own weight and have to be shored up and lined far more heavily than if they were self-supporting.

    Anyway, if you were building a motorway toward Limerick from Mitchelstown, you could build it over the piddling hills south of Ballylanders on the surface at far less trouble and expense than tunnelling under said piddling hills.

    But ultimately, why do you lads keep hammering on with the argument that:
    a) It's necessary to build motorway tunnels 'under the Galtees'.
    b) This tunnelling would be fairly straightforward.
    c) This tunnelling would make financial sense.

    Do you just want to have tunnels built for the hell of it or something? Because otherwise the argument doesn't really make sense....


  • Options
    #1876
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,736 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Subpopulus wrote: »
    T
    Anyway, if you were building a motorway toward Limerick from Mitchelstown, you could build it over the piddling hills south of Ballylanders on the surface at far less trouble and expense than tunnelling under said piddling hills.

    But ultimately, why do you lads keep hammering on with the argument that:
    a) It's necessary to build motorway tunnels 'under the Galtees'.
    b) This tunnelling would be fairly straightforward.
    c) This tunnelling would make financial sense.

    Do you just want to have tunnels built for the hell of it or something? Because otherwise the argument doesn't really make sense....

    IF such a route were chosen it would probably follow the route of the R513 which goes neither over nor under the Galtees but skirts around the west of the hills.


  • Options
    #1877
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    When the M20 was in planning during the 'good times' a feasibility report was done on whether the new M20 should shadow the N20 or the R513, and the N20 was decided:

    http://www.corkrdo.ie/files/M20/FTG_Pre-feasability-Study/Pre-Feasibility%20Report%20Update%20FINAL%20%2003122008.pdf


  • Options
    #1878
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,463 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    tippsean wrote: »
    We have to ask ourselves about why in the first place the towns of Mallow, Buttevant, Charleville etc have to be bypassed, isn't it because of all the traffic currently going through them that would be removed by a motorway. So if motorways were built from Mitchelstown to Limerick instead of an M20, then the traffic that is causing the problems in the towns would be gone.....would big bypasses still be necessary, maybe, but not nearly as big or as expensive as the ones being discussed her.e

    Hmm... But the vast majority of the cost of building roads is buying land. So really it wouldn't matter greatly if it was a "big bypass" or a "smaller bypass" you would need to purchase almost as much land either way, so no major savings there.

    I'm sorry, but you really haven't given any convincing evidence that tunnelling would be cheaper.

    The average cost of building motorways in Ireland is €8 million per KM.

    By comparison, lets look at you example of easy tunnelling in Switzerland, the Swiss government are planning a new tunnel under the Alps. It will be 4 lane, 17 km long and cost €2.65 billion!

    That is €156 million per km!!!!!!!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Road_Tunnel

    Looking at Irish examples, the Dublin Port Tunnel is 5.6km long (4.5km tunnel) and cost €752 million, that is €136 million per km!!!

    In other words tunnelling is about 20 times more expensive then a normal motorway per km.

    So I find it hard to believe that it would be cheaper.


  • Options
    #1879
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,736 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    bk wrote: »
    Hmm... But the vast majority of the cost of building roads is buying land. So really it wouldn't matter greatly if it was a "big bypass" or a "smaller bypass" you would need to purchase almost as much land either way, so no major savings there.

    I'm sorry, but you really haven't given any convincing evidence that tunnelling would be cheaper.

    The average cost of building motorways in Ireland is €8 million per KM.

    By comparison, lets look at you example of easy tunnelling in Switzerland, the Swiss government are planning a new tunnel under the Alps. It will be 4 lane, 17 km long and cost €2.65 billion!

    That is €156 million per km!!!!!!!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Road_Tunnel

    Looking at Irish examples, the Dublin Port Tunnel is 5.6km long (4.5km tunnel) and cost €752 million, that is €136 million per km!!!

    In other words tunnelling is about 20 times more expensive then a normal motorway per km.

    So I find it hard to believe that it would be cheaper.

    nobody is going to be tunnelling.

    the only possible scenario for tunnelling in Ireland would be for the Dublin ORR if they ever wanted to connect the N11 to the N7/N9 but even that's pretty far fetched.


  • Options
    #1880
    Reputable Rog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭Reputable Rog


    What is the obsession with tunnelling?


  • Options
    #1881
    jd
    Registered Users Posts: 5,680 ✭✭✭jd


    loyatemu wrote: »
    nobody is going to be tunnelling.

    the only possible scenario for tunnelling in Ireland would be for the Dublin ORR if they ever wanted to connect the N11 to the N7/N9 but even that's pretty far fetched.

    I can't see that happening - it would be much more likely they'd realign and dual the n80.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1882
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,955 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    bk wrote: »
    Hmm... But the vast majority of the cost of building roads is buying land.
    I agree with the rest of your points (and won't get into them) but the above just isn't correct. In Ireland during the boom years typically about 20% of a motorway's cost was land. In the USA 10% is typical.


  • Options
    #1883
    Paddico
    Registered Users Posts: 1,024 ✭✭✭Paddico


    tippsean wrote: »
    I agree, in any case the tunnelling that would be required through small parts of the Galtees would be minimal. Moreover, that composition of the rock in the Galtees is nothing like the solid material of the Pyrennees. The Galtees are made up of broken stone. The tunnels that would be required would be in the region of .5km and 1km. And again, there are already minor road networks in place through the Galtees that could be developed.

    WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU SMOKING :eek:


  • Options
    #1884
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,541 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    The N7 heading into Dublin should also be a lesson of why not to combine arterial routes into a single road heading into a city.

    All roads leading to Dunkettle is not a good idea. We'll have it just upgraded and we'll be faced with Limerick traffic going through it as well.


  • Options
    #1885
    zulutango
    Registered Users Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭zulutango


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    The N7 heading into Dublin should also be a lesson of why not to combine arterial routes into a single road heading into a city.

    All roads leading to Dunkettle is not a good idea. We'll have it just upgraded and we'll be faced with Limerick traffic going through it as well.

    The solution is to build better junctions rather than extra roads ...


  • Options
    #1886
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    zulutango wrote: »
    The solution is to build better junctions rather than extra roads ...
    Limerick traffic shouldn't be dumped into a signalised roundabout as is current with Dunkettle

    Instead it should be fed into a freeflow M20/N40 interchange around Blarney where traffic can go east/west, so N22/N71/N27 traffic can go westbound rather than direct into Dunkettle.


  • Options
    #1887
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,541 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    zulutango wrote: »
    The solution is to build better junctions rather than extra roads ...

    No. The solution isn't to upgrade junctions and then clog them up straight away by dumping a load more traffic through them.


  • Options
    #1888
    Deedsie
    Registered Users Posts: 5,272 ✭✭✭Deedsie


    zulutango wrote: »
    The solution is to build better junctions rather than extra roads ...

    Ya it is actually a combination of both.


  • Options
    #1889
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    No. The solution isn't to upgrade junctions and then clog them up straight away by dumping a load more traffic through them.
    Any traffic going from the N20/Limerick to another side of the city should use the ringroad anyway, meaning Dunkettle will have to foot that traffic at present. No point in driving all this traffic through the city centre.


  • Options
    #1890
    KCAccidental
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭KCAccidental


    marno21 wrote: »
    Any traffic going from the N20/Limerick to another side of the city should use the ringroad anyway, meaning Dunkettle will have to foot that traffic at present. No point in driving all this traffic through the city centre.

    that's why the North Ring road is essential.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1891
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,955 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    We didn't start this thread to discuss whether the Cork-Limerick road should go over the top of a mountain only to end at a highly congestion location east of Cork. We started it to discuss the new build route along the N20 which is the best way for it to go.
    Can we end the discussion on Galtee Mountain tunnelling techniques please? It seems in recent announcements that an initial segment of the M20 at Mallow may now be on the cards.


Advertisement