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

Bass Reeves

Cork Trucker wrote: »

There was a piece on RTE news a while back (in the last year roughly) interviewing 'objectors' from the Charleville area saying their farm will be split in 2 etc and were vocal in their support of the Mitchelstown route.

Isambard wrote: »

to paraphrase....NIMBY.

an objection like that is. The exact same issues would be on an option which is chosen as farms will be split no matter the route

Cork Trucker

Flesh Gorden wrote: »

Would underpasses not alleviate such an issue?

I live in the Glanmire area and there are numerous under and overpasses along the M8 towards Watergrasshill, that can accommodate milk tankers, tractors and combines.

It's a pretty poor stance to have from my own opinion.

I agree it is a pretty poor stance. This country is fcuked from people objecting to everything. I know the area well, i regularly travel through an underpass on my way to Knockraha that you'd probably get a double deck artic through (i have never tried it btw).

marno21

The group of objectors we’ve seen so far are textbook NIMBYs. I don’t want a road through my farm so put the road through some farms in east Limerick instead

Isambard

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Yes, but we got pulled by a Mod a while back to stop using that term that 'objectors' was more suited.

but the objection is pure NIMBY. As someone else just said, to paraphrase, stick it in someone else's back yard ) or SIISEBY

hans aus dtschl

All true, but it's not helpful to dismiss someone as a NIMBY.

It will have to go through someone's farm.
They'll be financially compensated.
It's best to go through the farm that makes the route most technically viable.
So their argument is not valid.

Isambard

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

All true, but it's not helpful to dismiss someone as a NIMBY.

It will have to go through someone's farm.
They'll be financially compensated.
It's best to go through the farm that makes the route most technically viable.
So their argument is not valid.

but if their only objection is they don't want it through their land and the alternative they suggest is put it through someone else's, what else would you call them?

mdmix

Isambard wrote: »

but if their only objection is they don't want it through their land and the alternative they suggest is put it through someone else's, what else would you call them?

Iv always considered nimbys people who didn’t want things in their general area but are otherwise unaffected. I think a farmer who will have his land cut in 2 has a genuine cause for upset.

marno21

mdmix wrote: »

Iv always considered nimbys people who didn’t want things in their general area but are otherwise unaffected. I think a farmer who will have his land cut in 2 has a genuine cause for upset.

Yes, but when the primary solution on offer is to cut someone else's land in two instead, where does it end? What happens when farmers in east Limerick object to having their farms severed?

The needs of farmers should be taken into account, as they will be, during the public consultation process and appropriate intrafarm access should be provided. It's provided everywhere else, I don't see why the M20 would be any different, especially when it cuts through some of the best land in Ireland in an area famed for extensive dairy farming.

mdmix

marno21 wrote: »

Yes, but when the primary solution on offer is to cut someone else's land in two instead, where does it end? What happens when farmers in east Limerick object to having their farms severed?

The needs of farmers should be taken into account, as they will be, during the public consultation process and appropriate intrafarm access should be provided. It's provided everywhere else, I don't see why the M20 would be any different, especially when it cuts through some of the best land in Ireland in an area famed for extensive dairy farming.

Yes, agree with you, and CPOs are an ugly necessity. Was just saying I understand his grievance and wouldn’t throw him in with the same category as the lad 2 miles away who doesn’t like the noise impact the new motorway will have on his home

Isambard

mdmix wrote: »

Yes, agree with you, and CPOs are an ugly necessity. Was just saying I understand his grievance and wouldn’t throw him in with the same category as the lad 2 miles away who doesn’t like the noise impact the new motorway will have on his home

.... but still wants it built a little further off to ease his commute....

hans aus dtschl

mdmix wrote: »

Yes, agree with you, and CPOs are an ugly necessity. Was just saying I understand his grievance and wouldn’t throw him in with the same category as the lad 2 miles away who doesn’t like the noise impact the new motorway will have on his home

Yep, I think it's reasonable that spurious arguments get the "NIMBY" tag.
Like someone who doesn't want a motorway, but is happy with a high quality dual carriageway, citing traffic volumes or noise.

chalkitdown1

Isambard wrote: »

but if their only objection is they don't want it through their land and the alternative they suggest is put it through someone else's, what else would you call them?

NIMF's?

marno21

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Yep, I think it's reasonable that spurious arguments get the "NIMBY" tag.
Like someone who doesn't want a motorway, but is happy with a high quality dual carriageway, citing traffic volumes or noise.

Hmm I would add that the "I support the project but put it through someone else's farm rather than my own" approach would constitute NIMBYism too.

It's a bit like the "I support renewable energy but don't want wind turbines near my house" or "I am a loyal Vodafone customer but don't want a mobile phone mast near my house". All seems to come with the NIMBY tag to me.

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

Hmm I would add that the "I support the project but put it through someone else's farm rather than my own" approach would constitute NIMBYism too.

It's a bit like the "I support renewable energy but don't want wind turbines near my house" or "I am a loyal Vodafone customer but don't want a mobile phone mast near my house". All seems to come with the NIMBY tag to me.

Seems fair.
But as someone above has said, a route cutting their farm in half seems like a reasonable reason for complaint. I wouldn't see that as similar to your vodafone/turbines example.
Obviously the "put it through someone else's farm" part is nonsense, though! That's NIMBY talk for sure.

marno21

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Seems fair.
But as someone above has said, a route cutting their farm in half seems like a reasonable reason for complaint. I wouldn't see that as similar to your vodafone/turbines example.
Obviously the "put it through someone else's farm" part is nonsense, though! That's NIMBY talk for sure.

Oh as I said farmers concerns should be addressed by putting in underpasses/culverts etc. but the idea that farms are to be untouched is unrealistic

marno21

Tender out for traffic surveys for the project

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/153452/1/0

roshje

marno21 wrote: »

Tender out for traffic surveys for the project

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/153452/1/0

Why would Tipperary Co. Council be involved in this survey?

road_high

roshje wrote: »

Why would Tipperary Co. Council be involved in this survey?

Probably lead local authority in the region.

marno21

roshje wrote: »

Why would Tipperary Co. Council be involved in this survey?

Have to go through the rigmarole of eliminating the routes via the N24.

Reputable Rog

road_high wrote: »

Probably lead local authority in the region.

Limerick are the appointed lead for the project.

Cork Trucker

marno21 wrote: »

Have to go through the rigmarole of eliminating the routes via the N24.

Hopefully the 'do it through Mitchelstown, it'll be cheaper' clowns will shut up once it's done.

highwaymaniac

roshje wrote: »

Why would Tipperary Co. Council be involved in this survey?

The study area of the scheme extends into Tipp. They will have to assess the option of going via M8 to mitchelstown then cross country to Limerick, it is better to assess it and rule it out than just dismiss it from the start. To me it's a belt and braces approach from TII but they are right to do so, others on here will argue it is the best route. For example on the M28 scheme objectors threw out the criticism that they hadn't looked at other route corridors eg carrigaline to the airport or N71, better to do it early days than waiting until the oral hearing.

hans aus dtschl

Exactly: do it once (more) and do it right.

serfboard

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The infrastructure budget is being blown on projects like the national children's hospital and the m17

How is the current infrastructure budget being blown on a road that's open two years?

Paddico

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Hopefully the 'do it through Mitchelstown, it'll be cheaper' clowns will shut up once it's done.

Duff idea

Castlekeeper

Flesh Gorden wrote: »

Cork Trucker wrote: »

There was a piece on RTE news a while back (in the last year roughly) interviewing 'objectors' from the Charleville area saying their farm will be split in 2 etc and were vocal in their support of the Mitchelstown route.

Would underpasses not alleviate such an issue?

I live in the Glanmire area and there are numerous under and overpasses along the M8 towards Watergrasshill, that can accommodate milk tankers, tractors and combines.

It's a pretty poor stance to have from my own opinion.

One problem is that it is often difficult/impossible to get the NRA to build an under/over-pass to allow continued access to the remainder of the farm.
Also the reduction in farm size and altered structure can make the farm less viable.
Compensation is a very protracted, difficult, hostile and adversarial affair with poor outcomes for early settlements because of no post settlement recourse in case of unforeseen problems.
It is usually impossible to replace lost land and access to same. Compensation usually does not cover replacement costs even where possible.
So in short it's usually a long running stressful nightmare for a farm family which they would be desperate to avoid.

Cork Trucker

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/corkman/news/strong-lobby-against-m20-route-through-north-cork-38511730.html

A senior official with Cork County Council has said the authority is working hard to ensure that the planned M20 Cork to Limerick Road would not be once again mothballed in favour of other infrastructural projects or be rerouted through Cahir.

Padraig Barrett, the director of the authority's roads and transportation department was speaking as he gave an update on the progress of the project to councillors at the September meeting of the northern area committee.

serfboard

Cork Trucker wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/corkman/news/strong-lobby-against-m20-route-through-north-cork-38511730.html

The Corkman wrote:

Mr Barratt said that while a completion date of 2027 had been set for the route, the council felt that was an "ambitious" target.

Good God. How did we ever get to a stage with this road where 2027 would be considered an "ambitious" target ...

Bass Reeves

serfboard wrote: »

Good God. How did we ever get to a stage with this road where 2027 would be considered an "ambitious" target ...

Well when you decide to spend 3 billion on a bells and whistles rural broadband scheme, and build a National Children's hospital in a constricted site then you see why we put other projects on the long finger. The big problem is over specification of projects such as the National broadband scheme. Trying to colocate the Children Hospital near an existing hospital was a disaster. We could have gone fora green field site and build the two hospitals and sold the original hospital site. it would have worked out cheaper

highwaymaniac

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Well when you decide to spend 3 billion on a bells and whistles rural broadband scheme, and build a National Children's hospital in a constricted site then you see why we put other projects on the long finger. The big problem is over specification of projects such as the National broadband scheme. Trying to colocate the Children Hospital near an existing hospital was a disaster. We could have gone fora green field site and build the two hospitals and sold the original hospital site. it would have worked out cheaper

It will be a PPP and likely tolled so payments spread over 30 years. Planning process is driving the timeline.