snotboogie wrote: » I can get behind this if the money is ring fenced and put into Busconnects Cork and Limerick but none of this from the Greens. Just no M20 and keep investing in Dublin.
Cookiemunster wrote: » BusConnects in Limerick and Cork isn't going to solve the issue of people traveling into Cork and Limerick on the route everyday on dangerous substandard and overcrowded roads. His idea would be grand if we didn't already have one off housing spread all around the country, but we do, so we have for plan around what we have, not what the Greens would like in an ideal world.
Isambard wrote: » the object of the M20 exercise is to provide the area between Limerick and Cork with a decent safe road into the cities. There is probably more traffic from this area into the cities than there is end to end, and this would still be there if the motorway went the ,long way round via Cahir. I dispute that rail is more efficient than road. Moving freight by rail in virtually every scenario involves road movements at each end and the extra time and labour costs involved with two transshipments means it is very often the case that rail does not meet the needs of freight customers in a "just in time" logisitics world.
Kevtherev1 wrote: » I heard all the Eamon Ryan Newstalk interview this morning. He was doing a ok job answering listeners questions. Then near end the M20 question came up and bham he then lost the audience. Eamon's point was no m20 joining limerick and Cork in its suburbs has it too much traffic joining poor local roads in Cork and Limerick. He wants m20 to join limerick via the M7. He fundamentally opposed, this guy will likely be taniste in next government going by the latest polls. Once the election results come in should the M20 design be paused? The eventual current design when complete goes to cabinet before planning submission. At that meeting there will be a almighty battle of ideology, the greens opposing the preferred route. I think this interview shows we cannot trust the greens as regards infrastructure, they will block roads and all public transport plans changed. Very dangerous for this country the greens getting maybe 8 to 10 seats in forthcoming election. If the greens block the m20 design it will be back into planning again for several years from mid 20s.
niloc1951 wrote: » "Just in time" is an excellent tool for manufacturers to minimise inventory holding. However its not very eco friendly as it invariable requires multiple frequent delivery trips, which includes air freight the most poluting transport of all. High volume transportations by rail and sea are the most eco friendly modes. Local railhead/dockside to consignee can be accomplished by EV. https://evcompare.io/trucks-and-vans/volvo/volvo_fl_electric/
Sam Russell wrote: » JIT does not require either more trips or air freight. What it requires is reliable and consistent transit times. JIT can use low cost sea freight if the transit time is consistent and is particularly apposite for low value components. All that JIT requires is the the production line gets what is needed when it is needed - but this applies to high value inventory, not the low cost stuff.
Deleted User wrote: » JIT requires cooperation between rival carriers and businesses to be eco friendly, sharing vehicles and synchronisation of routes to minimise the environmental impact of the transportation of materials and finished goods. That is very unlikely to happen.
Sam Russell wrote: » No it does not. JIT for, say Nissan, only relies on Nissan and its suppliers and logistic services. They are concerned with their inventory levels, the storage of that inventory, and their production line kept moving. A single part missing could/would stop the line. Now if they are ECO aware they might co-operate with other firms but that is not part of JIT.
marno21 wrote: » The N24 routing has merits but it has far fewer merits than the M20 routing. Using an N24 routing would still require Cork-Mallow dualling, Charleville bypass, Buttevant bypass, Mallow bypass (including Blackwater bridge), realigning the Ballybeg bends, realigning the Anhid bends, junction improvements etc It would end up costing just as much or more than the N24 routing, and provide less benefits.
prunudo wrote: » The greens can't have it both ways, they can't oppose the M20 while wanting a M24 routing. They seem so blinded by their ideology they can't see the business or even safety case for the M20. And as mentioned already, high quality roads also allow for express bus services and more efficient transport of goods. As we shift to greener vehicles their arguement against roads becomes irrelevant.
Water John wrote: » Not sure if Cork - Lim needs a full motorway. If it was majorly improved between Mallow and Croom, I would be ok with it. Travelled it in work for years. One would have to see the sums involved and traffic flow etc.
Isambard wrote: » also causes queueing from the Killarney direction. Mostly the problem is timid drivers who won't pull out in to the left hand lane if the right hand lane is occupied. A dual carriageway and a motorway are more or less the same animal. The whole road from Blarney to the M21 west of Patrickswell is needed.The Mallow to Cork section is way over capacity, and poor driving doesn't help either.
niloc1951 wrote: » # The idea of slipping in to a roundabout ahead of traffic to the right without stopping is an Irish thing. In the UK and Europe you must judge/adjust our speed to safely join in a gap and NOT COME TO A FULL STOP, unless no safe gap exists. I've never seen a 'Stop Sign' at a roundabout but too many drivers seem to thing it's a requirement to come to a stop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGmvyLcBtm4
niloc1951 wrote: » The via Cahir (M8 Jct.10) option has its merrits. It would give a reliable Cork - Limerick journey time of about 85 minutes in rain or shine. As DB says it would also provide an improved link between Limerick and Clonmel/Waterford and requiring 40km less new build would be significantly less expensive and have a shorter delivery time. Having said that, the deficiencies of the N20 should also be addressed to improve the inter town safety and commuting experience. Regarding the rail options, with the looming effect of climate change and the need to minimise energy use we should consider that moving freight by rail is 12 times more efficient than by road.
marno21 wrote: » The only difference in cost between a motorway and dual carriageway in relation to the M20 will be if there’s an additional cost required for the blue pigment for the signage There is no benefit to not building a “motorway” along the route unless there is a shortage of blue paint and the green signs are cheaper
niloc1951 wrote: » If it's to be an M'way more land will be needed for slowing and merging lanes at rest/parking areas, 'though they seemed to get away without them on the M8 :rolleyes:
Cookiemunster wrote: » There is no physical difference between a HQDC and a motorway other than the colour of the signs.
Cookiemunster wrote: » There is no physical difference between a HQDC and a motorway other than the colour of the signs. And there shouldn't be any rest/parking areas on a motorway. Most of the ones that are there today are on roads that were designed as HQDC and then redesignated.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d96cd5eb793ec44f833dd8d0bb2a52ac.svg)
