rounders wrote: » Looks like it's a either or situation. According to the diagram they will compare the two options after route selection and pick between road and railhttps://corklimerick.ie/what-next/
cgcsb wrote: » Ah I see. As expected tipping the cap at public transport and climate action but not really doing anything, they're hardly going to not select the motorway option so a frivolous waste of ink talking about rail when there's no intention there. I suppose if LMATS and improvements to intercity rail are made it will be resolved outside of the M20 project.
Reputable Rog wrote: » Rail whilst a lovely idea makes no sense over road, the vast majority of journeys are not City Centre to City Centre, so it’s all well and good when you get to Colbert and want to go Clonlara or Caherdavin etc.
marno21 wrote: » The route option for south of the 2010 split north of Buttevant is identical (+ the offline option south of Mallow which will be discarded). If they pick that route, include a Buttevant junction and go forth with 2 separate north and south section they could have the southern element at ABP quite quickly as a lot of work was done on it in 2010
steeler j wrote: » A question if someone can help ,was the route already selected in 2010 ?
Reputable Rog wrote: » It’s all going as one application to ABP and one construction contract.
Chris_5339762 wrote: » Yes. The route was selected and the scheme went to ABP but was pulled by the government as they could not afford the CPOs at the time. Everyone thinks this was a dreadful decision but they wouldn't have been able to afford to build it anyway, and we'd probably have had to come back to square 1 and do the new route selection ANYWAY. With regard to the routing, can I be selfish and want the Navy/Plum/Teal routes as they cut off corners. In reality though I reckon the one closest to the 2010 plans will be picked. But what I would be interested to see are the old "1996 Buttevant bypass" plans, for interests sake.
Chris_5339762 wrote: » We all thought the M3 would be the biggest roads contract in Irish history but it would be nice to have the M20 as the biggest. 80km of new motorway at once ANYWHERE in Europe is impressive thesedays. But don't look at China.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » I don't think it is guaranteed that it will be 80km of new motorway. The recent TII Projects Active List says; Cross-section: Motorway TBD. It wouldn't surprise me if it ended up with a section of 2+2 between Mallow and Charleville, AADT is only 10k.
marno21 wrote: » This rule wasn’t applied to the M6/M7/M8/M9 or indeed the M17 There will be a transfer of traffic from other routes which will converge on the M20. I haven’t used the N20 in over a year end to end but I’ve been via the M8 several times for one.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » With the benefit of hindsight, the M9 south of the junction with the N10 and the M17 both should have been 2+2. 2+2 wasn't as strong a concept here as it is now and HQDC was pushed for political reasons as much as anything else.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » With the benefit of hindsight, the M9 south of the junction with the N10 and the M17 both should have been 2+2. 2+2 wasn't as strong a concept here as it is now and HQDC was pushed for political reasons as much as anything else. A well designed 2+2 could handle double the current AADT at the counter between Buttevant and Charleville so it should suffice even if the upgraded route attracts more traffic. When Dunkettle is freeflow, the M8 will likely still attract traffic from north Cork east of the N/M20 rather than getting dumped in a traffic jam at Blackpool. I'm sure the traffic studies being carried out will determine how much traffic is using alternative routes which may switch to an upgrade N20 route.
Cookiemunster wrote: » Whether it's justified or not, they'll build the whole route as motorway. I don't actually see that much of a saving in taking the hard shoulder out of 15km of an 80km scheme anyway. And they won't want a section of N road in the middle of two sections of motorway either.
donal.hunt wrote: » Can you give a grief explainer regarding what a 2+2 is and how it differs from a motorway?
Cookiemunster wrote: » 2+2 is a dual carriage without any hard shoulder that has a wire median barrier. It can also have lower grade junctions (roundabouts), but in this situation, with no intermediate junctions between Buttevant and Charleville, that's not relevant.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Open to correction here but 2+2 costs approx. €10m/km to build, motorway approx. €14m/km. You could have as much as 25km of 2+2 between north of Mallow and Charleville which would yield a saving of €100m. For reference, the N5 between Castlebar and Turlough has a higher AADT than the counter between Buttevant and Charleville but yet is being built as 2+2. Like I said, I wouldn't be surprise if we ended up with a section of 2+2 in the middle as there is a good logic for it.
BelfastVanMan wrote: » Yes, but those sections of DC with 120 limits are Type 1 DC, i.e. Motorway Standard.
BelfastVanMan wrote: » There isn't a legal requirement for 2+2 to be limited to 100km/h, several sections in Ireland with 120km/h limits, just mostly set there. Yes, but those sections of DC with 120 limits are Type 1 DC, i.e. Motorway Standard.
[Deleted User] wrote: » For a second there I thought you were having an argument with yourself :pac:
riddlinrussell wrote: » ........................ its a bad look to have it take 30 years for a motorway between Cork and Limerick and then 'half-ass' it by having potentially two roundabouts in the middle of it.
niloc1951 wrote: » It's not unusual to come across changes from motorway to dual-carriageway and vice versa in Europe. They can do it without roundabouts, just signs indicating the change of status and a change to the appropriate speed limits.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eedacf599b4135dfd56d6fdbddcbd867.svg)
