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

busman

Tremelo wrote: »

Back on topic, the M20 scheme has not yet received planning permission because ABP are awaiting detailed responses to the concerns highlighted in the attached document.

Thanks for that.
How long does the Council have to reply? and then how long for An Bord Pleanala to rule?

Leonard Hofstadter

I mean, seriously.

This road between Blackpool and Rathduff is an absolute disgrace:mad:!

Sixty kilometres an hour. Yes, that's right. A measly 60 kph is all you're allowed do between just outside Blackpool and the Mallow side of Rathduff.

Now, I don't have a problem (too much) with there being a limit of 60 on the bits that they are doing roadworks on.

But yesterday, there was no roadworks of any description on any part of this road. And still the speed limit was bloody 60 kph.

Obviously, I, like everyone else on the road yesterday, decided to ignore it and drove at 100.

But seriously, if the Gardai and the RSA want to improve speed limit compliance, the least they can do is have bloody sensible speed limits:(!

Stark

I saw them this morning taking down the 60km/hr signs.

corktina

wow CCC must read Boards!

pigtown

Does anyone think there is a case to be made for linking the Foynes rail line at Patrickswell with the Cork-Dublin line at Charleville, parallel to this road?
We will probably never again be CPOing a line from Limerick to Cork so buying enough land to build a rail line as well as a motorway should be seriously considered in my opinion.
Depending on how much money is available I see four options for the construction of the line:
1. Build the rail line.
2. Purchase enough land so that it can be built in the future.
3. Purchase the land and build all of the over/underbridges that would be required.
4. Dont build it or make provisions for it.

corktina

well, this line closed down originally as there was dwindling usage and an almost paralell route via Lim Junction so no I dont really see much point in it.

Wild Bill

corktina wrote: »

well, this line closed down originally as there was dwindling usage and an almost paralell route via Lim Junction so no I dont really see much point in it.

They could move the tracks from the new Ennis - Galway line; nobody seems to be using them

pigtown

Ok so the demand for one is probably not there at the moment but does anyone think that enough land should be CPOd now so that if/when the demand exists it would be relatively quick to build?

corktina

what will we use to buy the land? we have no money.

Irish and Proud

pigtown wrote: »

Ok so the demand for one is probably not there at the moment but does anyone think that enough land should be CPOd now so that if/when the demand exists it would be relatively quick to build?

IMO, the money would be far better spent upgrading Limerick Junction and the lines from there to both Cork and Limerick instead of building a separate line from Cork to Limerick. The average speed along the Cork line could be enhanced while the track to Limerick could be doubled and rendered suitable for higher speeds too. Railways are very expensive to build and run, so the greatest use possible must be made of any one rail link. This in turns leads to the 'least cost to builder' pattern.

Regards!

nordydan

Saw a notice in this weeks Limerick Leader.

There's an update on the Cork RDO website

cjpm

Another crash on the N20 last night around 11. Car on its roof, presumable after mounting the wire rope barrier. That's around 3 in the past 3 weeks on the wire rope section.

Amtmann

nordydan wrote: »

Saw a notice in this weeks Limerick Leader.

There's an update on the Cork RDO website

What's the update, Dan? The CPO?

nordydan

Tremelo wrote: »

What's the update, Dan? The CPO?

Only scanned the advert briefly TBH. I think its the Buttevant junction?

L1011

cjpm wrote: »

Another crash on the N20 last night around 11. Car on its roof, presumable after mounting the wire rope barrier. That's around 3 in the past 3 weeks on the wire rope section.

Further proof if we ever needed it that 2+1s aren't safe in Ireland.

-Corkie-

MYOB wrote: »

Further proof if we ever needed it that 2+1s aren't safe in Ireland.

Absolutley the road should have been a DC from Blarney to Mallow first day. I hate using that road, I seen all the wire torn down allright.

corktina

with you there bud, with only a minimal extra outlay this could have been acheived from day one, the tarmac'd surface is wide enough on virtually all this section.

I hate it too, but have to add it has saved lives as it protects right-turners (but so would a 2+2)

cjpm

cjpm wrote: »

Another crash on the N20 last night around 11. Car on its roof, presumable after mounting the wire rope barrier. That's around 3 in the past 3 weeks on the wire rope section.

Haven't travelled this road in a few weeks. When i last did I couldn't get over the amount of sections of the barrier that have not been repaired.

They are surely very dangerous to trucks in particular. If the posts are flattened and the wire is hanging lower than normal, then it's quite likely that a truck could overturn should it hit a damaged section??


Any news on the ABP decision?? The revised design was submitted in August I believe.

niloc1951

[QUOTE=cjpm;75036222...........................I couldn't get over the amount of sections of the barrier that have not been repaired...............................[/QUOTE]

There seems to be a 'fit & forget' policy regarding safety barriers in this country, which brings into question, if they are deemed important enough to fit in the first instance, why are they not important enough to be repaired after their effectiveness has been compromised after collision damage
There must be hundreds (I've seen dozens myself) of examples around the country.

Contrast that the the immediate repairs one sees after damage is suffered to safety barriers in other countries.

munchkin_utd

MYOB wrote: »

Further proof if we ever needed it that 2+1s aren't safe in Ireland.

A little late to reply, but a car on its roof with passengers shaken but alive because of the central barrier on the 2+1 section is a better result than a head on collision between two cars at a cumulative speed of 200kmh and anything up to ten dead or very seriously injured.

This section had very regular fatalities but since the 2+1 scheme it's no longer the case. The last time I heard there was no fatalities since the barriers went up which is a massive improvement in safety.
If the barriers aren't being repaired though the road might go back to seeing high fatality numbers again.

corktina

Head ons werent the main prooblem, rear ends were. In either case safety has been improved though traffic problems have increased. a 2+2 would be much better and there is no doubt that 2+1s are a failure.

Wild Bill

corktina wrote: »

Head ons werent the main prooblem, rear ends were. In either case safety has been improved though traffic problems have increased. a 2+2 would be much better and there is no doubt that 2+1s are a failure.

I don't think anyone would claim a 2+1 is as safe as a 2+2 - but the fact is that the 2+1 is a vast improvement over the undivided road.

corktina

only froma sfaety point of view. As a road, they are a traffic nightmare.Try following a tractor on one and you'll know what I mean.

L1011

munchkin_utd wrote: »

A little late to reply, but a car on its roof with passengers shaken but alive because of the central barrier on the 2+1 section is a better result than a head on collision between two cars at a cumulative speed of 200kmh and anything up to ten dead or very seriously injured.

This section had very regular fatalities but since the 2+1 scheme it's no longer the case. The last time I heard there was no fatalities since the barriers went up which is a massive improvement in safety.
If the barriers aren't being repaired though the road might go back to seeing high fatality numbers again.

The other early 2+1 scheme (Piltown) has had far more fatalities since the barriers went in. There's a chance that the car wouldn't have ended up on its roof *or* in to another card at all. Junctions on the Mallow 2+1 lead to constant gaps in the barrier and constant potential flip points.

corktina

Odd isn't it? I'd have bet the Piltown section would be safer as it has long 2 lane sections, unlkie the N20 which are a mere 1 km long.

Jayuu

corktina wrote: »

Odd isn't it? I'd have bet the Piltown section would be safer as it has long 2 lane sections, unlkie the N20 which are a mere 1 km long.

Whatever about the overall argument of 2+1 from a safety point of view, the Piltown 2+1 is just badly designed.

The LILO junctions edge too far out into the road and because the whole section of road is elevated it's very hard to get any sense of where you are on the road especially when visibility is reduced. I find the wire barrier a disaster because its practically invisible at times.

Also a lot of the change over between one lane and two come by adding a lane to the left which means that traffic suddenly finds itself in the outside lane. I don't know if this is standard in the 2+1 type but it does cause problems because people are very slow to move back over to the left lane.

Tech3

NRA axes Cork to Limerick motorway plan

THE National Roads Authority has written to Cork County Council confirming that funding has been pulled from the long awaited M20 Cork to Limerick motorway.

The future of the project had come under intense speculation in recent months amid fears that it would fall victim to Government cutbacks.

In a letter to Cork County Manager Martin Riordan, given to councillors at this week's Northern Division committee meeting, the NRA conformed that the project had been shelved.

The letter said that the decision was made as a result of major budget reductions to allocations for national road projects, combined with the cost of buying land along the route of the proposed motorway.

The letter said Transport Minister Leo Varadkar had requested the council now withdraw the proposal for the M20 scheme from An Bord Pleanala, effectively pulling the plug on he project.

While not entirely unexpected, the news was still greeted with widespread disappointment by councillors.

Fianna Fail's Frank O'flynn said that the road would have been an important driver for future business development within the wider North Cork area.

"This is very disappointing news. We should write to the minister asking that the decision be reversed," he said.

Labour's Cllr Ronan Sheehan said the blame for the lack of funding should be laid firmly at the feet of the last government. "Their priority was all about throwing money at roads to Dublin with no regard for the rest of the country," he said.

Fine Gael's Cllr Gerard Murphy and Cllr Tom Sheahan both said they believed the council should now push the case for bypasses to be build in Charleville and Buttevant.

Independent councillors Timmy Collins and John Paul O'shea agreed.

"The people of Charleville at least deserve that. It is not safe to even cross the street in some parts of the town," said Cllr Collins.

Senior council engineer Tom Stritch said the authority was "extremely disappointed" that the scheme had been shelved.

"However, we will write to the minister and the NRA outlining comments made here today particularly with reference to bypass roads around both Charleville and Buttevant," he said.

Link

pigtown

Does this mean they're not even going to preserve the route?

corktina

how many extra people will die I wonder?

Sponge Bob

pigtown wrote: »

Does this mean they're not even going to preserve the route?

They will 'protect' the emerging preferred route. They will resume ( if ever) from that stage and with new and much cheaper CPOs and a new EIS.

Wonder what the story is with the section north of Charleville where they are preparing an EIS and final design??