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

Isambard

is there any case of houses being knocked for motorways in rural Ireland in the last decade or so?

Cork Trucker

Isambard wrote: »

is there any case of houses being knocked for motorways in rural Ireland in the last decade or so?

The only time I remember houses being demolished was for the N20 from the Sunbeam industrial estate right up to Murphy’s Brewery. That was all between 1998-2000

steeler j

niloc1951 wrote: »

Saying it's the roads which cause deaths is not quite correct, it's people driving on the roads which causes the deaths. I know its idealistic but if drivers understood and respected their own deficiencies and those of their environment we would have no crashes.
Cue autonomous vehicles in the control of machines not humans.

So roads with bad bends and bad sight lines are not a factor in road collision

Isambard

Cork Trucker wrote: »

The only time I remember houses being demolished was for the N20 from the Sunbeam industrial estate right up to Murphy’s Brewery. That was all between 1998-2000

and most of them nearly fell down

Bass Reeves

rounders wrote: »

This is the public consultation phase. The hint is in the name, the time for the public to be consulted.

Instead of blaming everything on NIMBY try to pause a sec and think would you be ok with the motorway knocking your home? I don't get why you think houses being taken is dramatic? There is plenty house that are going to be taken for the road?

Everyone impacted is allowed push back on the route selection and give their views. It's then up to TII to determine the best route with the impact on communities in mind.

The luck ones are the ones who's houses are taken. There is a lot worse that can happen rather than your house being taken. Saw on a route once( not chosen) for a road where in a line of 8-10 houses build on the side of a road. That a new road was cutting through where 2-4 houses were being taken the rest of the houses going to be sitting with side of this new busy road that was going to be higher than them. Your house being taken is not the problem it the ones left. Any house taken will be fully compensated

Bass Reeves

niloc1951 wrote: »

Saying it's the roads which cause deaths is not quite correct, it's people driving on the roads which causes the deaths. I know its idealistic but if drivers understood and respected their own deficiencies and those of their environment we would have no crashes.
Cue autonomous vehicles in the control of machines not humans.

You have never driven Buttervant to Rathduff so

Pete_Cavan

Even if the house is on a corridor, the chance of the house having to be knocked is quite slim given the width of the corridors at this stage v the width of the eventual road. The is plenty of scope within the corridors to avoid houses. That particular corridor has only a small chance of being selected anyway so between those two factors, it is highly unlikely that there will be any impact on his house.

He seems like a lad who likes acting the hardman with the comments he made. I'd say he will be telling everyone who will listen how they wanted to build a motorway through his house but he faced them down and won the battle. Everyone will nod until he turns away when they will roll their eyes.

steeler j

niloc1951 wrote: »

Saying it's the roads which cause deaths is not quite correct, it's people driving on the roads which causes the deaths. I know its idealistic but if drivers understood and respected their own deficiencies and those of their environment we would have no crashes.
Cue autonomous vehicles in the control of machines not humans.

Road collision are a number of factors ,road layout ,driver behavior and weather conditions,so by removing 1 if these factors will help but not eliminate all crashes and deaths

Cork Trucker

Isambard wrote: »

and most of them nearly fell down

Not all. Quite a few were occupied. I know of one case that went to court

niloc1951

steeler j wrote: »

So roads with bad bends and bad sight lines are not a factor in road collision

Bass Reeves wrote: »

You have never driven Buttervant to Rathduff so

steeler j wrote: »

Road collision are a number of factors ,road layout ,driver behavior and weather conditions,so by removing 1 if these factors will help but not eliminate all crashes and deaths

Since the late 1960's I've driven all sorts of vehicles on all sorts of roads at both a sedate manner and at rally speeds. What has stood to me is a teacher who taught me to 'read the road' and the 'body language' of the drivers of other vehicles.
So Buttervant to Rathduff is no problem, I drive to the road conditions. If sightlines at a junction are bad I'm extra careful and if necessary I lower a window to listen for possible oncoming traffic and don't dawdle when moving off. Unlike a lot of drivers I'm not afraid of 'flooring it' when required.
As for speed limits, I generally ignore the signs and drive on within the condition of the road and the presence or otherwise of other traffic, unless of course the is a danger of being the 'fish in a barrel'.

So yes, I have no problem cruising along motorways, and glad to have them, at the legal limit but I'm equally happy doing Cork - Listowel via the R179 - R176

steeler j

niloc1951 wrote: »

Since the late 1960's I've driven all sorts of vehicles on all sorts of roads at both a sedate manner and at rally speeds. What has stood to me is a teacher who taught me to 'read the road' and the 'body language' of the drivers of other vehicles.
So Buttervant to Rathduff is no problem, I drive to the road conditions. If sightlines at a junction are bad I'm extra careful and if necessary I lower a window to listen for possible oncoming traffic and don't dawdle when moving off. Unlike a lot of drivers I'm not afraid of 'flooring it' when required.
As for speed limits, I generally ignore the signs and drive on within the condition of the road and the presence or otherwise of other traffic, unless of course the is a danger of being the 'fish in a barrel'.

So yes, I have no problem cruising along motorways, and glad to have them, at the legal limit but I'm equally happy doing Cork - Listowel via the R179 - R176

No need to upgrade any road,all we have to do is drive to ur standard and there will be no crashes
I also can read roads and driver behavior

SeanW

niloc1951 wrote: »

Saying it's the roads which cause deaths is not quite correct, it's people driving on the roads which causes the deaths. I know its idealistic but if drivers understood and respected their own deficiencies and those of their environment we would have no crashes.
Cue autonomous vehicles in the control of machines not humans.

Road standards are absolutely a contributing factor. Any group of drivers, no matter how good or how bad, will have fewer accidents on a motorway as opposed to a single carriageway with lots of crossing traffic, towns and villages en-route etc. Especially when the traffic flow is large, e.g. connecting a nations second and third largest cities, their hinterlands and everything in between.

Routes that try to service motorway levels of traffic on single carriageways and village/town main streets have a bad safety record as a general rule, it's not specific to any given country.

Isambard

the problem with poor roads is that poor drivers use them, That's where the accidents come in. Improve the roads and poor drivers become less of a problem.

alias no.9

niloc1951 wrote: »

Cue autonomous vehicles in the control of machines not humans.

They had a series on Channel 4 a few years ago where they pondered the ethics of autonomous vehicles.

Most of the talking heads were spouting the 'least possible casualties' line where the car had to make a choice and it was not possible to save everyone, except for Guy Martin.

He took the view that no person outside the car should be sacrificed to save an occupant of the car, the occupants were the ones who brought the dangerous weapon after all.

liam7831

Plenty of protest groups from Crecora to Mourneabbey. Never knew people cared so much about the flora and fauna

Cork Trucker

liam7831 wrote: »

Plenty of protest groups from Crecora to Mourneabbey. Never knew people cared so much about the flora and fauna

The M28 Steering group were probably their inspiration :rolleyes:

marno21

It's important to realise also that we are in a public consultation period where a number of routes are on the table. The concerns of residents in Whitechurch and Crecora are likely to be addressed at this stage of the project development as both issues concern sub-optimal routings for the motorway.

The key difference between this and the M28 is that the M28 crowd continue to persist even though their concerns have been addressed. That's more of a crusade than what's going on with the M20.

Hibernicis

marno21 wrote: »

It's important to realise also that we are in a public consultation period where a number of routes are on the table. The concerns of residents in Whitechurch and Crecora are likely to be addressed at this stage of the project development as both issues concern sub-optimal routings for the motorway.

The key difference between this and the M28 is that the M28 crowd continue to persist even though their concerns have been addressed. That's more of a crusade than what's going on with the M20.

This is spot on. During the M28 public consultation the residents of the areas raised a number of very significant issues with TII/CCC (e.g. proposed closure of Mount Oval off slip road, capacity overload at junction of Rochestown Road/Clarke’s Hill, capacity overload on Clarke’s Hill, social impact of the link road from Maryborough Hill upper to the M28 via Maryborough Ridge, totally impractical design of the M28/Carr’s Hill interchange, etc). And to be fair to TII these concerns were not alone listened to, but also addressed in the revised final design. This is the whole point of the public consultation. The residents of the M20 corridor are absolutely within their rights to raise their concerns and doubts at this stage. In fact, were they not to do so and then start raising them subsequently they would be guilty of doing what the M28 steering group are doing.

marno21

There's a new sign after appearing on the N20 at the northern Mourneabbey turnoff with the usual on it

https://twitter.com/C103Cork/status/1340744189961793537

The route along here is an offline route broadly following the 2010 routing but there's only one route proposed so the route along here is effectively finalised.

Isambard

I thought the route was to strike off to the east a good bit south of here and Mourneabbey would be unaffected, The section of route shown here would be the route into south Mallow.

Bass Reeves

At present with multiple corridors and with wide corridors you will have much more objectors. As well objectors know that it is now you can influence the route away from your desired route. When the corridor is selected objectors will be cut in half maybe. Finally when route is selected within the corridor this will drop objectors back to a small number. At that stage the majority of those effected will turn to mitigation rather than injection as they know the route is finalized and very unlikely to be stopped

Isambard

i see the naked horsemen are back in Mallow....south side of bypass bridge.

spacetweek

Hi all. I had a video consultation on the M20 scheme with a guy from the project team yesterday. Informative and he really knew his sh*t.

Notes:
Preferred option by summer 2021
ABP by 2023 (movable date!)

Rail
Regarding the rail option that follows the old closed line via Croom, this could be combined (though not in scope here) with opening of the foynes line to passenger and freight
This approach would involve a new terminus near Colbert station where old Guinness terminal was - Colbert wouldn't be able to handle the trains itself
Irish rail are completely separate from the project - but they are privy to the discussions
No info on how Irish rail would be funded for any part they might have to build - would have to be separate arrangement

Road
Not so much opposition to the project in his experience - he wasn't involved in the M18
Routing straight into Limerick M7 bypass not considered as it was desired that Cork-Foynes and Cork-Adare journeys would be facilitated
He says the Cork Northern ring and/or north distributor road are still active and they are in consultation with CCC about this - though not part of this project.
He acknowledges that it wouldn't be appropriate for the M20 at Cork to end at traffic lights east of Blarney
No decision on phasing - this will come during procurement - though he left the door open on a phased approach due to scheme size.

Totally agreed that cost shouldn't the primary consideration; quality of delivered product is.

riddlinrussell

Any mention of cycling/walking proposals for the 'alternative route'?

pigtown

spacetweek wrote: »

Rail
Regarding the rail option that follows the old closed line via Croom, this could be combined (though not in scope here) with opening of the foynes line to passenger and freight
This approach would involve a new terminus near Colbert station where old Guinness terminal was - Colbert wouldn't be able to handle the trains itself
Irish rail are completely separate from the project - but they are privy to the discussions
.

That's interesting. Did he say why Colbert Station couldn't handle the extra trains?
Also, where was the Guinness terminal?

Sam Russell

spacetweek wrote: »

Hi all. I had a video consultation on the M20 scheme with a guy from the project team yesterday. Informative and he really knew his sh*t.

Notes:
Preferred option by summer 2021
ABP by 2023 (movable date!)

Rail
Regarding the rail option that follows the old closed line via Croom, this could be combined (though not in scope here) with opening of the foynes line to passenger and freight
This approach would involve a new terminus near Colbert station where old Guinness terminal was - Colbert wouldn't be able to handle the trains itself
Irish rail are completely separate from the project - but they are privy to the discussions
No info on how Irish rail would be funded for any part they might have to build - would have to be separate arrangement

Was there any discussion about the existing line to LJ, and removing the LC gates and dualling the line?

Was there any view on Luas type use of the old alignment out towards Croom? Obviously, it would need to go across the city towards the University, or out towards the Ennis Road or both rather than just going to Colbert.

Cookiemunster

pigtown wrote: »

That's interesting. Did he say why Colbert Station couldn't handle the extra trains?
Also, where was the Guinness terminal?

The old Guinness depot on Careys Road next to the CIE club. The track bed is still there and runs up to the edge of Careys Road
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6556001,-8.6221981,185m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Cookiemunster

Sam Russell wrote: »

Was there any view on Luas type use of the old alignment out towards Croom? Obviously, it would need to go across the city towards the University, or out towards the Ennis Road or both rather than just going to Colbert.

I'm pretty sure that's not in the scope of this project.

Reputable Rog

Sam Russell wrote: »

Was there any discussion about the existing line to LJ, and removing the LC gates and dualling the line?

Was there any view on Luas type use of the old alignment out towards Croom? Obviously, it would need to go across the city towards the University, or out towards the Ennis Road or both rather than just going to Colbert.

If the rail option is added it will probably run via the junction with dualling.
They were talking about dualling the line 20 years ago.

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

Was there any view on Luas type use of the old alignment out towards Croom? Obviously, it would need to go across the city towards the University, or out towards the Ennis Road or both rather than just going to Colbert.

Far beyond the scope of this project. For info on what’s planned public transport in the city have a look at the Limerick/Shannon Metropolitan Area Transport Strategy (LSMATS)