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

Cork Trucker

I wonder will Kojak be out and about with Kodak as a result

https://twitter.com/Corkcoco/status/1183681828110131200

chalkitdown1

Can someone translate that into Englisdh for me?

What's an overlay scheme? Is it road resurfacing? If so, why is it taking them 7 months to do it?!

Or is there more to it that I'm not understanding?

JamesBond2010

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

Can someone translate that into Englisdh for me?

What's an overlay scheme? Is it road resurfacing? If so, why is it taking them 7 months to do it?!

Or is there more to it that I'm not understanding?

This is an example type of work, could be different to the actual work that is being done

''Scheme commenced in January 2018 and is now complete.
The works are located on the N25 National Primary Route at Castlemartyr East from the bridge in Castlemartyr Village to a point approximately 2.2km east at Knockane crossroads. The type of work involved is the removal of failed sections of pavement, subsequent strengthening of these sections and resurfacing with bituminous macadam. Works also include storm water drainage, flood containment embankment works, new footpaths and kerbs, installation of new watermain on behalf of Irish Water, undergrounding of overhead services, tree surgery, roadside drainage works, traffic signs and road markings and traffic management.''

niloc1951

I'm just back from touring Europe for over four months. A concept which is widely used is France, Germany and Spain is the use of 2+1. When using them it can be seen from the layout that the 2+1 has been applied to roads which were originally 1+1.
While waiting for the delivery of beautiful M/HQDC solutions the adoption at very little cost of the 2+1 idea, without the cheese wire, would certainly make driving less stressful that being unable to overtake slow traffic on exceedingly wide 1+1 carriageways. I know this from actual experience.

Link below to what I'm describing for those who have not ventured off the ould sod.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.6404579,-0.5782928,137a,35y,180h,74.92t/data=!3m1!1e3

JamesBond2010

niloc1951 wrote: »

I'm just back from touring Europe for over four months. A concept which is widely used is France, Germany and Spain is the use of 2+1. When using them it can be seen from the layout that the 2+1 has been applied to roads which were originally 1+1.
While waiting for the delivery of beautiful M/HQDC solutions the adoption at very little cost of the 2+1 idea, without the cheese wire, would certainly make driving less stressful that being unable to overtake slow traffic on exceedingly wide 1+1 carriageways. I know this from actual experience.

Link below to what I'm describing for those who have not ventured off the ould sod.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.6404579,-0.5782928,137a,35y,180h,74.92t/data=!3m1!1e3

Like a climbing lane, But then u will always have one feckin asshole who will dangerously overtake from the 1 lane side of the road & cause a serious crash then

marno21

Whilst it's a meritorious idea in some situations niloc1951, they are really suited to quieter roads and retrofitting them onto busy roads would cost money and likely make the roads more dangerous. Overtaking a stream of traffic on one of these overtaking areas is only so much use as you slam into another stream of traffic one mile down the road.

There is only one solution to the N20's issues and it has been known with many years. The M20 project was reactivated in November 2016 and the progress since then has been breathtakingly poor.

Perhaps it would have been a better idea to restart half the M20 then, get it through planning faster and put the design team designing the other half when the first half got planning. If they had restarted Buttevant North-Blarney in 2016 it would be close to ABP now. Instead they are aiming to have the biggest motorway project in the country's history with ABP by 2023, a full seven years after initial planning was to recommence.

Hibernicis

JamesBond2010 wrote: »

Like a climbing lane, But then u will always have one feckin asshole who will dangerously overtake from the 1 lane side of the road & cause a serious crash then

The idea of 2+1 is great, and having driven similar stretches in provincial France I would have thought it should have provided a solution to the problem of slow moving vehicles blocking the Mallow road by allowing safe overtaking as niloc1951 proposes. However having driven the existing 2+1 sections of the Mallow road frequently, I have to say they are a deathtrap. I've regularly had the experience of being overtaken by cars and vans hurtling by on these super narrow carriageways despite the fact that I was travelling at the speed limit. And the number of occasions I have had to break hard because some idiot "puts the boot down" to overtake as he passes the "200m to merge" sign is scary. I have actually come to hate those stretches and would be very slow to see them expanded.

marno21

Hibernicis wrote: »

The idea of 2+1 is great, and having driven similar stretches in provincial France I would have thought it should have provided a solution to the problem of slow moving vehicles blocking the Mallow road by allowing safe overtaking as niloc1951 proposes. However having driven the existing 2+1 sections of the Mallow road frequently, I have to say they are a deathtrap. I've regularly had the experience of being overtaken by cars and vans hurtling by on these super narrow carriageways despite the fact that I was travelling at the speed limit. And the number of occasions I have had to break hard because some idiot "puts the boot down" to overtake as he passes the "200m to merge" sign is scary. I have actually come to hate those stretches and would be very slow to see them expanded.

The best thing to do is remove them. The N20 pilot was a disaster. Putting 2+1 on a road with ten a penny at grade junctions and houses was always going to end in tears.

The N2 schemes should be upgraded to 2+2 and the N20 and N24 scheme returned to the S2 it once was.

JamesBond2010

Hibernicis wrote: »

The idea of 2+1 is great, and having driven similar stretches in provincial France I would have thought it should have provided a solution to the problem of slow moving vehicles blocking the Mallow road by allowing safe overtaking as niloc1951 proposes. However having driven the existing 2+1 sections of the Mallow road frequently, I have to say they are a deathtrap. I've regularly had the experience of being overtaken by cars and vans hurtling by on these super narrow carriageways despite the fact that I was travelling at the speed limit. And the number of occasions I have had to break hard because some idiot "puts the boot down" to overtake as he passes the "200m to merge" sign is scary. I have actually come to hate those stretches and would be very slow to see them expanded.

The other extreme then is u have some slow fellow pull out in to the climbing frame trying to pass another even slower fellow & u have a load of cars then on the outside C.Lane trying to get in to the normal lane as the C. Lane ends. Your Right its a disaster.

steeler j

marno21 wrote: »

Whilst it's a meritorious idea in some situations niloc1951, they are really suited to quieter roads and retrofitting them onto busy roads would cost money and likely make the roads more dangerous. Overtaking a stream of traffic on one of these overtaking areas is only so much use as you slam into another stream of traffic one mile down the road.

There is only one solution to the N20's issues and it has been known with many years. The M20 project was reactivated in November 2016 and the progress since then has been breathtakingly poor.

Perhaps it would have been a better idea to restart half the M20 then, get it through planning faster and put the design team designing the other half when the first half got planning. If they had restarted Buttevant North-Blarney in 2016 it would be close to ABP now. Instead they are aiming to have the biggest motorway project in the country's history with ABP by 2023, a full seven years after initial planning was to recommence.

That is the way it should have been done,it's a lot of work and time to get it all ready in the one go

Muttley79

Hibernicis wrote: »

AFAIK the 2008 plan was to build it in two phases, a Southern section and a Northern section. It will be interesting to see if this resurfaces this time. Building the full length (90km-100km) as a singe project would be unusually long in terms of contracts previously awarded in this country.

As a roaduser who has to drive Cork-Limerick a couple of times a week (though I now usually take the Ballylanders-Hospital-Caherconlish “freeway”) if the M20 road project were to be divided up, i would prioritise it as follows:

1. Mallow to Croom* - 45Km – Replace existing cow track with new grade separated M/HQDC

2. Cork to Mallow – 35Km – Convert from single carriage way at grade to grade separated M/HQDC

3. Croom to M20/N21 junction – 9km - Convert from single carriage way at grade/grade separated to grade separated M/HQDC

4. M20/N21 junction to M20/M7 junction – 10Km – upgrade junctions

Not sure I’d bother splitting step 3 from step 1, but if it did make a difference to the cash flow, step 1 is a far higher priority. That said, if a motorway ended at Croom and funneled into the exiting Croom to M20/N21 junction stretch, that would end up having a de-facto running speed of 125km and become a complete death trap.

* Small point - I would do Mallow to Croom rather than Mallow to Charleville as you suggest as one project given that the Croom to Charleville stretch is every bit as dangerous as the Charleville to Mallow stretch.

The M8 route would be a very poor alternative, offering nothing to East Kerry, Mallow etc, dumping another ton of traffic into the Dunkettle junction, and hitting the second lowest quality stretch of the M8 (Cashel-Mitchelstown) which would most certainly need upgrading to cope with the additional traffic.

The m8 route makes more sense as going to mitchelstown/fermoy to Limerick would save over 100 million of taxpayers money.that money would then be reinvested to link Waterford and rosslare up and then would link the 3 cities of Munster up together which is badly needed

Cork Trucker

Muttley79 wrote: »

The m8 route makes more sense as going to mitchelstown/fermoy to Limerick would save over 100 million of taxpayers money.that money would then be reinvested to link Waterford and rosslare up and then would link the 3 cities of Munster up together which is badly needed

And what about the state of the current N20? Will you stand in front of the loved one of every person who has died on that death trap with your proposal?

Isambard

It makes no sense at all. It takes me one hour to get to the N24/M8 junction from North Cork. This route would do nothing to relieve the N20 which would still need to be re-built, as most traffic would continue on the original route.People are dying due to this delay.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we keep this thread for M20 - that is the N20 upgrade. There is a thread for the M8 variation.

Thank you.

Cork Trucker

Waterloo junction on the N20 being considered for permanent closure once again.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/N20-Waterloo-junction-closure-being-considered-by-Council--50492475-f3f4-45a6-950c-36caa6c9dc81-ds

jgbyr

Councillors: M24 would spell 'disaster' for Cork and make Limerick 'Ireland's second city'

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/councillors-m24-would-spell-disaster-for-cork-and-make-limerick-irelands-second-city-958951.html

hans aus dtschl

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Waterloo junction on the N20 being considered for permanent closure once again.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/N20-Waterloo-junction-closure-being-considered-by-Council--50492475-f3f4-45a6-950c-36caa6c9dc81-ds

This one feels like groundhog day, doesn't it.

Edit: both of the previous two posts do.
No offence to the two people posting, it's the content creators themselves I'm objecting to!

Cork Trucker

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

This one feels like groundhog day, doesn't it.

Edit: both of the previous two posts do.
No offence to the two people posting, it's the content creators themselves I'm objecting to!

Yes indeed, sick of the whole via the M8 sh1te now as well. M20 is the only show in town or it should be. As for Waterloo, i'd be in favour of closing it to be honest. Not helpful to the locals but it's a ,major safety issue that hasn't been resolved, only made worse by stupid drivers and their gps systems which aren't updated no doubt.

Reputable Rog

I suspect this is a nonsense story. There has always been plans for an N24 upgrade but not on the scale of the M20.

Isambard

I thought the Waterloo Junction was working well. I haven't seen even one U turn and I got hat way fairly often.

Paddico

Reputable Rog wrote: »

I suspect this is a nonsense story. There has always been plans for an N24 upgrade but not on the scale of the M20.

I'd agree with this though both need to be upgraded to Motorway status

marno21

Paddico wrote: »

I'd agree with this though both need to be upgraded to Motorway status

The N24 does not need to be a motorway, especially the section between Tipperary Town and Cahir.

The section just south of Tipperary Town is carrying 6000 vehicles per day, and the Cahir bypass is carrying 7500. This is within the capacity of a single carriageway, let alone anything bigger.

2+2 from Cahir to Limerick Junction is whats planned in the medium term and that's more than sufficient. A 2+2 along there will be operating at ~33% of capacity.

niloc1951

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Waterloo junction on the N20 being considered for permanent closure once again.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/N20-Waterloo-junction-closure-being-considered-by-Council--50492475-f3f4-45a6-950c-36caa6c9dc81-ds

I'm just back from over 4 months in Europe where I travelled over 4,000kms on non toll roads.
On my travels I came across many many junctions like the Waterloo one on inter city/major town routes which we designed to facilitate local traffic circulation.
It was not uncommon to find the junction design incorporating a reduced speed limit, rumble strips on the mainline and traffic islands instead of the painted hatching favoured here. The design resulted in a temporary reduction of speed which added not more than a few seconds to the journey time and the precise routing of all traffic traversing the junction in a safe manner.

hans aus dtschl

niloc1951 wrote: »

I'm just back from over 4 months in Europe where I travelled over 4,000kms on non toll roads.
On my travels I came across many many junctions like the Waterloo one on inter city/major town routes which we designed to facilitate local traffic circulation.
It was not uncommon to find the junction design incorporating a reduced speed limit, rumble strips on the mainline and traffic islands instead of the painted hatching favoured here. The design resulted in a temporary reduction of speed which added not more than a few seconds to the journey time and the precise routing of all traffic traversing the junction in a safe manner.

Similar road designs, but crossing over primary routes between two major cities as heavily trafficked as the N20 with 100kmh limits though?
I had to check the http://speedlimits.ie/data/documents/N20CK-F01.pdf document because I could barely believe it's a 100kmh limit through there myself. I think the speed and the junction aren't very compatible, so one's gotta change.

Limerick74

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/489218/west-limerick-not-threatened-by-row-over-motorway.html

niloc1951

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Similar road designs, but crossing over primary routes between two major cities as heavily trafficked as the N20 with 100kmh limits though?
I had to check the http://speedlimits.ie/data/documents/N20CK-F01.pdf document because I could barely believe it's a 100kmh limit through there myself. I think the speed and the junction aren't very compatible, so one's gotta change.

As can be seen, on Irish road there is little use if any of reduced speed limits at potentially dangerous junctions etc.
The prevelance, on mainland Europe, of reduced speed limits when passing certain junctions, factory entrances/exits and other hazardous areas is a pain in the butt, but it does reinforce the concept that speed is a variable dependent on conditions and not a constant no matter what.

A real example of our poor understanding of the above is the village of Glenflesk on the N22 where, if you have the mind for it, you can legally blast through at 100km/h GLENFLESK

alanucc

niloc1951 wrote: »

A real example of our poor understanding of the above is the village of Glenflesk on the N22 where, if you have the mind for it, you can legally blast through at 100km/h GLENFLESK

Not any more... They recently introduced an 80kmh speed limit through the village

SeanW

If you can call it a village - a petrol station, a church and a few one-off houses! Hardly justifies a 30kph limit or anything like that.

Niloc's point is also inaccurate in that Ireland does indeed have extra-urban limits. It is not in the least unusual to be a good distance from the nearest town only to have to slow down to 50 or 60kph because you're passing by a factory or business park that is (as one might expect) only/mainly used during business hours.

serfboard

alanucc wrote: »

They recently introduced an 80kmh speed limit through [Glenflesk] village

Should really be 60kmh through there, IMO.

marno21

serfboard wrote: »

Should really be 60kmh through there, IMO.

It is indeed a 60km/h limit. With a lot of enforcement