spacetweek wrote: » Developed countries should have good quality road and rail, not road or rail. A lot of the discussion on this thread is very adversarial, all people arguing against one and for the other. Many of the people using an improved (I agree HSR is overkill) railway won't be commuters so location of industrial estates is irrelevant. As for UL, in any properly run city a destination 1-2 km from the centre would be reachable by bus in a matter of minutes. Not in Ireland.
mikeym wrote: » Whats the point in building a railway line from Limerick to Cork when technically both Cities can be accessed by going through Limerick Junction. It's a pipe dream, I've said it before but a decent service, Cork to Limerick, interchanging with other routes at the Junction would be far better value, much cheaper and could be instigated almost immediately.
Isambard wrote: » mikeym wrote: » Whats the point in building a railway line from Limerick to Cork when technically both Cities can be accessed by going through Limerick Junction. It's a pipe dream, I've said it before but a decent service, Cork to Limerick, interchanging with other routes at the Junction would be far better value, much cheaper and could be instigated almost immediately. Is the line from Limerick Junction to Limerick single track? If it is, it would need to be double tracked, or at least it needs to have passing loops added.
Sam Russell wrote: » Is the line from Limerick Junction to Limerick single track? If it is, it would need to be double tracked, or at least it needs to have passing loops added.
marno21 wrote: » It’s double track from Limerick to just before Killonan Junction where the line to Ballybrophy diverges It’s single beyond that to Limerick Junction
Sam Russell wrote: » How far is that? (Limerick to just before Killonan) I was looking at Google maps, but the photo quality is abysmal. It does not look as though the alignment allows for double tracking, but it is difficult to tell. Also there are lots of level crossings.
Reputable Rog wrote: » Reading the Business Post yesterday, they were reporting that the M20 will go ahead.
Leonard Hofstadter wrote: » I'd love to believe this is true but the Programme for Government has no specific commitments on any roads being built. With a 2:1 spend on public transport as a bare minimum, it would want to be one heck of a budget to get the M20 done along with roads maintenance.
marno21 wrote: » It’s unlikely that any large spending on the M20 apart from land purchase will take place in the lifetime of this Government. Then again, there are few shovel ready public transport projects to soak up all the funding either so we’ll have to wait and see how this 2:1 ratio stuff works out.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Likely the strokestown bypass will be ready for construction next year. I can't see the M20 getting passed the green unless its broken into a few sections, at least get some of it done or planning for it.
alias no.9 wrote: » A sleight of hand might come in the form of a PPP where the state incurs little capital expense or spreads it over an extended period
Deleted User wrote: » I can't see the M20 getting passed the green unless its broken into a few sections, at least get some of it done or planning for it.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » It should have been split into sections years ago. The upgrade of 2+1 between Mallow and Cork has to happen anyway for safety reasons and wont be overly expensive, get that done first. South of Mallow to north of Buttevant is easily justifiable on traffic and safety grounds. At that stage, extending up to Patrickswell is a no brainer.
Sam Russell wrote: » a PPP scheme would make no sense at the moment.
serfboard wrote: » PPP schemes never make sense, IMO. It's borrowing (in the sense that we have an obligation to repay) that we pretend is not borrowing, and which we pay more for.
serfboard wrote: » I'd be all for splitting it too, although I'd do it differently: 1. Patrickswell to Banoge north. The existing good section of road which I would do last. 2. Banoge north to Mallow North. A 40km section from the end of the existing Croom bypass to Mallow, bypassing both Charleville and Buttevant. The part of the road in most desperate need of being done, from a safety and congestion point of view. 3. Mallow to Blarney. Although this section carries the most traffic, I would still do it second, since the safety benefits of the previous section make it priority, IMO, and this section is not as bad.
Sam Russell wrote: » Exactly, plus the PPP (Privatise the Public Purse) also transfers risk to the public purse while passing the profit to the private part. If it goes pear shaped the private part can walk away. It was only a wheeze to help political friends and supporters.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » I was thinking in terms of the 2+1 being an outdated road type which needs upgrading anyway, hence easily justifiable. It is also cheap to do, has minimal environmental impacts, less contentious, etc. Working north from there, each section done strengthens the case for the next. You could have motorway from Mallow to Blarney built in the time it takes for any other section to overcome the inevitable court challenges.
irishfeen wrote: » Can’t see any mention of the M20 in the programme for government... I presume this is curtains for us in north Cork
Cookiemunster wrote: » You can't build a online motorway upgrade that way. You have to close all accesses, build junctions and provide an alternate route. The route would be under construction in different places constantly for years causing endless delays. It's not really feasible in small chunks. The only feasible way to break it up is North and South of Mallow as was proposed in the original 00s plan.