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

cjpm

corktina wrote: »

and Limerick the third....what a shame they built the M8 rather than a combination of M7 and M20....two motorways either side of a little mountain range is laughable.

Few reasons why the M20 is a better route

1 North South is the shortest route between Cork & Limerick

2 It caters for the traffic from all the towns on the N20

3 This way all the Charlevelle, Croom, and Limerick traffic do not end up at the Dunkettle Interchange

4 It's relatively flat except the section south east of Mallow

5 17km of the proposed is online with the current N20


Does anyone think it will ever be built?!??

BluntGuy

cjpm wrote: »

Does anyone think it will ever be built?!??

It will be built.

When is the question. I reckon we could be looking at an opening between 2016 and 2020 judging by the present circumstances. I have strong doubts it'll be done by 2015 (as promised under "Transport 21")

cjpm

Appearently there was a massive meeting in Rathduff last week about it. Few of the designers and big guns from the NRDO were in attendance. It went on for 4 hours from what i heard, huge opposition to the current layout through the village and the the parallel roads.......

Big attendance from Bweeng too as they will have to travel to Rathduff to access the M20, currently they get on the N20 200m south of the stag (statue) and so they don't have to go through Grenagh or Rathduff

Is a Motorway order the same as the CPO or is it done before the CPO is done??

Will this get to M. Order or CPO stage in 2009 or 2010??

Sponge Bob

Everybody calm down . CPO publication is maybe a year away and that if they are efficient .

Large meetings like that one do lead to variances in the final design in fairness. From the final design the land take may be ascertained and then there is a bit of haggling before the CPOs are researched and published . Haggling is often farmers doing land swaps etc .

Crudely I would see the schedule as , Final Layout Design after local meetings etc etc H2 2009 or H1 2010 , CPO Publication H1 2010 , EIS Published H1 2010 .

AnBordP hearing mid-late mid 2010 after EIS is published . AnBordP publish consent/variances H1 2011 which will require some fiddling with the final design and with the land grab .

No archaeology has been started either . ( forgot that bit) but that follows EIS publication. Archaeology is a summer sport in Munster...like hurling .

Final design and CPO taking EIS and AnBordP into account H2 2011 and fencing it off H2 2011 .

This road will not be ready to TENDER until H1 2012 meaning that it cannot now be built before 2014 ....even if we did have money to do so

Then the authorities will spend their time from 2012 to around 2019 looking for cash for the job . Money will appear just in time for the 2019 general election and therefore the road could well open around late 2021

spacetweek

mysterious wrote: »

The M1 could handle the 4 inter urbans combined and it will still be half empty.

We can't take you seriously when you come out with things like this.

4 Interurbans => at least 20k each. Total = 80k
Capacity of M1 Motorway = 55,000 veh.

Half empty? Get real pal.

Traffic on the 5 interurbans is growing strongly and the current downturn seems to be only causing about a 5-10% drop (figures from NRA's traffic counters). Motorways are needed. One is also needed between Limerick and Cork, not necessarily because of gargantuan volumes, but mainly because the existing road is sh1te and a big upgrade is needed.

The Word Is Bor

SB, you must remember that the M20 is a fast-track project which will bring it up to ABP Oral Hearing stage. The prelim design, AFAIK, is finished (bar one or two minor ammendments and not forgetting what input ABP might have at the oral hearing!). The EIS is under way. From what I hear it should appear before ABP in the new year (2010, in case you are wondering;) ).

Chris_533976

But the timing is probably true, although a PPP company will build the thing the government havent got the cash to pay for the (significant) CPOs in this project.

Sponge Bob

The Word Is Bor wrote: »

SB, you must remember that the M20 is a fast-track project which will bring it up to ABP Oral Hearing stage. The prelim design, AFAIK, is finished (bar one or two minor amendments and not forgetting what input ABP might have at the oral hearing!). The EIS is under way. From what I hear it should appear before ABP in the new year (2010, in case you are wondering;) ).

You are right . I searched eTenders again and found these back in 2007 , they include Design AND EIS . Can't find one for Croom - Patrickswell - Adare though but that is a small matter if it can be added to the others .

As the EIS is under way I knocked a year or a bit more more off my original timeline but i feel it will be late 2011 before everything is done and dusted procedures wise .

I amended the post above . Fast Track seems to involve one consultant instead of many . I am not sure what ABP does differently in a fast Track but they are seemingly in no rush to arrive at a conclusion .

The tenders .

http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=APR082282

http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=APR082284

http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=APR082067

Wild Bill

cjpm wrote: »

Currently they get on the N20 200m south of the stag (statue) and so they don't have to go through Grenagh or Rathduff

Surely they are not proposing to dig up the current N20 as part of the construction?

mysterious

spacetweek wrote: »

We can't take you seriously when you come out with things like this.

4 Interurbans => at least 20k each. Total = 80k
Capacity of M1 Motorway = 55,000 veh.

Half empty? Get real pal.

Traffic on the 5 interurbans is growing strongly and the current downturn seems to be only causing about a 5-10% drop (figures from NRA's traffic counters). Motorways are needed. One is also needed between Limerick and Cork, not necessarily because of gargantuan volumes, but mainly because the existing road is sh1te and a big upgrade is needed.

I don't expect you too for starters. As I've said before you tend to jump to many hurdles and knock them all down all the way to the finish line and you still don't notice.:D

In other words. You don't read before you "kneejerk"

It was the English M1 I was referring too..

I really hope that makes things clear. I wouldn't be bothered either way if you don't take me seriously or not. I've said this before I have my mind and I use it well. It's none of my business "of how little or more you take my viewpoints into consideration.:D

Sponge Bob

Where is that new map I asked you for yesterday Mysterious ??

mysterious

MYOB wrote: »

Its an identical argument - in one thread you argue that we need to serve all areas served by the former primary, allowing local traffic on; and in this one you state that we don't, that the route is stragetic and long distance. You have no consistent standing on the matter.

I've made my point clear. I don't regard people twisting things into an argument. The Point of the M7 was there is an interchange there that has no access from the south side. The interchange is existing, the motorway is existing. No one including me is asking for a motorway to be re routed to other towns.


The Mallow N20 is well served by the N20 to Cork which is high standard WS2 with some parts 2+! and DC standard.

I'm discussing a new intergrated motorway network that intergrates the N20, N24, N25 by connecting the large cities into a motorway grid. The route I've selected is never meant to serve every town on it's route, it's not possible.


They are not the same points. Now I'm going to ignore you from this point on as there is no reasoning with you unless there is an argument. I feel that your stalking me at this point constantly nit picking and finding something negative or judgmental to say.

Ok well I'm done.

Sponge Bob

Where is my MAP ????

cjpm

Wild Bill wrote: »

Surely they are not proposing to dig up the current N20 as part of the construction?

Most of the online 17km is just widening of the N20 however there will be some locations where the road may be lowered at crest curves and some of the tighter bends may have to be straightened... all in the name of sight distance for 120kph

J.P.

Amtmann

SpongeBob: You've asked that question three times. I suggest you go down the PM route if you must.

Now, back on topic please.

BluntGuy

mysterious wrote: »

It was the English M1 I was referring too..

Which still makes your earlier post incorrect.

I've made my point clear. I don't regard people twisting things into an argument. The Point of the M7 was there is an interchange there that has no access from the south side. The interchange is existing, the motorway is existing. No one including me is asking for a motorway to be re routed to other towns.

You haven't made your point clear at all.

I'm not here to join in whatever so-called "arguments" you and MYOB may be having but you have posted contradictory opinions. You state in this post:

The route I've selected is never meant to serve every town on it's route

Yet in the thread MYOB has linked to you're complaining about a lack of access from a tiny town (Newport) to the M7, which, upon further inspection of the matter, is actually more than sufficient for local needs. So which is it?

At which settlements would you provide interchanges on your proposed Limerick-Galtees motorway?

mysterious

BluntGuy wrote: »

Which still makes your earlier post incorrect.

No it doesn't I said the M1 in England.

You haven't made your point clear at all.

I'm not here to join in whatever so-called "arguments" you and MYOB may be having but you have posted contradictory opinions. You state in this post:



Yet in the thread MYOB has linked to you're complaining about a lack of access from a tiny town (Newport) to the M7, which, upon further inspection of the matter, is actually more than sufficient for local needs. So which is it?

At which settlements would you provide interchanges on your proposed Limerick-Galtees motorway?

1. Mallow is well served to Cork.
2. Newport and the entire sould of the M7 has no access to the M7 fro an "existing" interchange.

My argument was having an intergrated motorway network that connects all the major settlements with a motorway grid system. This means its not going to follow its old route.


They are completely different arguements. MYOB argument is trying to link the two as the same. They are not. Because I was discussing inadequate access to an already built motorway. Mallow is on a national route with direct access to Cork. The M7 motorway has only to entrance the Limerick end and the Nenagh end. The Birdhill interchange only has access to Birdhill and the North. The south quadrants of the interchange has no access at all.


I have no issue with Mallow not having access. My position is having a grid motorway system. Grid motorways systems are not designed to be built along its former route.


The Existing M7 issue was not having a proper interchange on it's "actual route"


Now you can all dismiss my point again. It now obvious that its pick and choose what people want negate from my points. This is my final point on this matter. It's getting tiresome that another topic is thrown at me that isn't the dicussion. If anyone still feels upset by my views, please post in the appropriate thread on the matter.

murphaph

We are in a completely different position to the UK (and the rest of Western Europe) when it comes to motorway building.

The UK built hundreds of decent bypasses and road realignments/upgrades long before they even contemplated motorways. That's why motorways are a distinct system in the UK. The 'old roads' had already been upgraded for the most part.

In Ireland we hadn't a pot to p!ss in for most of our time as an independent nation. It makes sense to build our motorway network as a pretty much direct replacement for our national routes which, for the most part, are or were (before being bypassed) still in a diabolical condition.

The M20 is the obvious choice. The N20 would need major works ANYWAY even if a non-parallel motorway replacement (as advocated by Mysterious et al) was built instead. No point in duplicating expenditure. Just build the M20 and detrunk the old road to max 80kmh or lower.

The N24 should be upgraded too, independently of the N20.

BluntGuy

mysterious wrote: »

No it doesn't I said the M1 in England.

BluntGuy wrote:

Which still makes your earlier post incorrect.

mysterious wrote:

Mallow is well served to Cork.

I didn't even mention Mallow. But I wouldn't consider that atrocious 2+1 section to be "well served".

My argument was having an intergrated motorway network that connects all the major settlements with a motorway grid system. This means its not going to follow its old route.

This is obvious and I didn't dispute this, it has nothing to do with my point.

They are completely different arguements. MYOB argument is trying to link the two as the same. They are not. Because I was discussing inadequate access to an already built motorway.

It doesn't matter whether the motorway is built or not.

The issue we are discussing is that of "local access". My point was that why did you make an issue out of Newport not getting access (though the access in my view is perfectly adequate), when under your "grid motorway" proposals, towns such as Newport would not receive the type of access to the motorway which you are advocating on the other thread.

I asked for further clarification when I said this:

BluntGuy wrote:

At which settlements would you provide interchanges on your proposed Limerick-Galtees motorway?

Could you answer that? That would make it far easier to see where you're coming from.

mysterious wrote:

This is my final point on this matter. It's getting tiresome that another topic is thrown at me that isn't the dicussion. If anyone still feels upset by my views, please post in the appropriate thread on the matter.

The questions and points I have raised are perfectly appropiate for this thread. You have given us your alternative to the M20, I am asking you questions about it while using references from another thread to clarify my points. Nobody is "upset" by your views, certainly not me anyway, I'm just curious to know more about where you're coming from and to get some clarification on some of your points. If you can't take the questions, don't post. Simple as.

Chris_533976

I have the original plans for the Mallow - Croom N20 when it was still planned as DC (not motorway). They're totally different from the M20 plans. All I have is the preferred route, and it really is totally different.

Zoney

murphaph wrote: »

The UK built hundreds of decent bypasses and road realignments/upgrades long before they even contemplated motorways. That's why motorways are a distinct system in the UK. The 'old roads' had already been upgraded for the most part.

In Ireland we hadn't a pot to p!ss in for most of our time as an independent nation. It makes sense to build our motorway network as a pretty much direct replacement for our national routes which, for the most part, are or were (before being bypassed) still in a diabolical condition.

Not only that, but those N roads which had been upgraded are mostly appropriate for what are fairly busy R roads.

Even though the N20 is atrocious for a *national* road, a lot of the surfacing work, small realignments and signposting (e.g. on bends) does make it a lot more acceptable as an R road as is.

SeanW

cjpm wrote: »

Most of the online 17km is just widening of the N20 however there will be some locations where the road may be lowered at crest curves and some of the tighter bends may have to be straightened... all in the name of sight distance for 120kph

J.P.

Wouldn't that put an end to the 'alternate route?' I was under the impression that making "online" motorway upgrades is legally a tricky business.

L1011

SeanW wrote: »

Wouldn't that put an end to the 'alternate route?' I was under the impression that making "online" motorway upgrades is legally a tricky business.

There needs to be an alternative route but there is no legal minimum of the standard. Some of the R road that is the alt route for the new M11 sections is single track!

Stark

MYOB wrote: »

There needs to be an alternative route but there is no legal minimum of the standard. Some of the R road that is the alt route for the new M11 sections is single track!

I'm pretty sure all the redesignated sections have R772 that has been downgraded from old N11 as the alternative route. The parts running parallel to the single track are still green N11.

Wild Bill

Stark wrote: »

I The parts running parallel to the single track are still green N11.

I think that is correct. The motorway starts southwards from Coynes Cross. North from there the R772 cuts through a network of single-track grass-in-the-middle local roads before re-emerging onto the old N11 2km further north. The new N11 in this area is non-motorway. It was probably because of this they didn't stretch the motorway designation as far as the Newtown exits. :cool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R772_road

cjpm

SeanW wrote: »

Wouldn't that put an end to the 'alternate route?' I was under the impression that making "online" motorway upgrades is legally a tricky business.

An alternative route is to be constructed adjacent to the M20 wherever there is not a suitable local road.

So for Blarney to Mallow (online for 17km):

from Blarney to Rathduff the alternative route is to be the Old Cork Mallow road, 10km

from Rathduff to Burnfort Cross the alternative is going to be a brand new parallel road, east of the current N20 7km

from Burnfort Cross to Mallow the motorway is no longer online so the alternative shall be the current N20


J.P.

Victor

Moved to Infrastructure.

cjpm

There's tumbleweed blowing around the M20 thread at this stage!!

Has it dropped off the NRA's radar totally?? Cork CC were hoping to finish the prelim design i thought....

Amtmann

We've had a more recent M20 thread here; I'm considering merging that with this.

Amtmann

Yup...merged.