nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

BluntGuy

The new M20 motorway inbetween Cork and Limerick. I've heard that there are many people that feel it's rather unnecessary considering the traffic volume.

I personally believe if they're going to upgrade the N20 route, they may as well use the safest long-term solution, which of course is a direct motorway link. But what do you all think?

Find more posts tagged with

cork

limerick

motorway

m20

atlantic corridor

Quick Links

Comments

KrisW1001

Dogg, that's unhelpful and inaccurate.

@danoriordan, The green blob is the corridor - it's far wider than the final road will be. If your house backs onto the existing Mallow Road and if the green route is chosen, your house will back onto the new, wider motorway. It's really unlikely they'll knock your house: it's expensive and more work than just building on unused land.

The existing road goes along a cutting at this point, and from the aerial photos it looks like there was enough land reserved at time of the current N20's construction to widen it to motorway standard. I suspect there was always a longer-term plan to widen to a dual-carriageway here when the new road was built. Actually, considering when this road was built, it's also possible that it was planned as a dual carriageway as far as here, but then the dualled section was brought back to the Blarney junction to save money.

In short, it's unlikely that anyone along here will lose their house, but quite a few will end up with a motorway behind theirs.

steeler j

danoriordan1402 wrote: »

Sorry for the dim question, from the interactive map - I am living right in the middle of the green blob just outside Blarney pretty much where the existing road runs.

Is said green blob just indicating the Phase 2 study area or something more sinister :eek:

Where u in the house in 2010 because it would probably be the same as back then

Pete_Cavan

marno21 wrote: »

The M20 routing from 2009 from Mourneabbey past Rathduff to Blarney can be followed here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120307192949/https://www.corkrdo.ie/files/M20_Cork_Limerick_Motorway%20Scheme_Preliminary%20Design_June_2009/handout_01_02.pdf

Just had a look at that, I'm surprised that the motorway doesn't deviate more from the existing N20 at Rathduff, run it closer to the rail line and leave the existing road between L2782 and L6869. And surely the Mallow South Junction should be closer to the town than that, even if it requires and section of link road? Also, what stage is the N72 bypass at now?

I also would have thought that it would make sense to go east of Charleville and also closer to the town than the corridors suggest. Connect the motorway junction to a new ring road around the town from the Primary Care Centre on the existing N20 to the R515 and round to the Charleville Park Hotel to distribute traffic around the town.

danoriordan1402

steeler j wrote: »

danoriordan1402 wrote: »

Sorry for the dim question, from the interactive map - I am living right in the middle of the green blob just outside Blarney pretty much where the existing road runs.
Is said green blob just indicating the Phase 2 study area or something more sinister :eek:

Where u in the house in 2010 because it would probably be the same as back then

House was built 2009. At the end of the day not that concerned. I know some people further into the "green" did receive letters - we didn't. First thing the better half said was , we'll have to dig up the old family dog as its buried in the back garden.
That was her only concern

steeler j

House was built 2009. At the end of the day not that concerned. I know some people further into the "green" did receive letters - we didn't. First think the better half said was , we'll have to dig up the old family dog as its buried in the back garden.
That was her only concern

U could be ok when u didn't receive any letter but someone more informed than me might know more

spacetweek

steeler j wrote: »

U could be ok when u didn't receive any letter but someone more informed than me might know more

Yea, that sounds good, but really none of us should be speculating on this as we don't want to set any expectations.

marno21

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Just had a look at that, I'm surprised that the motorway doesn't deviate more from the existing N20 at Rathduff, run it closer to the rail line and leave the existing road between L2782 and L6869. And surely the Mallow South Junction should be closer to the town than that, even if it requires and section of link road? Also, what stage is the N72 bypass at now?

Mallow South has terrain issues if you go close to the town. It could be a little closer alright but it would just be a similar length single carriageway link road. Most traffic at this interchange will be Cork bound anyway so it won't add much to the journey.

N72 bypass is at route selection, same stage as this scheme. Pity they weren't bundled tbh.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I also would have thought that it would make sense to go east of Charleville and also closer to the town than the corridors suggest. Connect the motorway junction to a new ring road around the town from the Primary Care Centre on the existing N20 to the R515 and round to the Charleville Park Hotel to distribute traffic around the town.

I think west of Charleville is a better option assuming there's a junction with the R515. There's quite a lot of traffic coming from the R515 to access the N20 both to head north to Limerick and south to Cork. Heading east on the R515 accessing the M20 North here would be very useful for Kanturk/Newmarket traffic, it would avoid the narrow street approach to Charleville.

There was no junction planned in the 2010 plan, which was disappointing.

steeler j

N72 bypass is at route selection, same stage as this scheme. Pity they weren't bundled tbh.

Was there only an 72 link road in 2010 ?

steeler j

spacetweek wrote: »

Yea, that sounds good, but really none of us should be speculating on this as we don't want to set any expectations.

Would contacting the consultants help we a matter like this ?

marno21

steeler j wrote: »

N72 bypass is at route selection, same stage as this scheme. Pity they weren't bundled tbh.

Was there only an 72 link road in 2010 ?

https://web.archive.org/web/20120307192949/https://www.corkrdo.ie/files/M20_Cork_Limerick_Motorway%20Scheme_Preliminary%20Design_June_2009/handout_01_02.pdf

It was indeed, bundled as part of the M20 scheme in 2010. It was so far out because of land prices I believe at the time. Not sure if the same strategy will be applied this time round as the obscene land pricing issue isn't there this time.

neddynasty

marno21 wrote: »

I think west of Charleville is a better option assuming there's a junction with the R515. There's quite a lot of traffic coming from the R515 to access the N20 both to head north to Limerick and south to Cork. Heading east on the R515 accessing the M20 North here would be very useful for Kanturk/Newmarket traffic, it would avoid the narrow street approach to Charleville.

There was no junction planned in the 2010 plan, which was disappointing.

I don't think a junction with the R515 is a good idea. All that will lead to is everyone travelling from M20 North & South to Charleville will get off at the R515 junction and funnel everyone down to the narrow Smiths Lane junction. Much better having a junction north & south of Charleville and making people decide which direction to approach Charleville from. Similar to the Cashel (M8) setup I think where they have a Cashel South and Cashel North exits.

marno21

neddynasty wrote: »

I don't think a junction with the R515 is a good idea. All that will lead to is everyone travelling from M20 North & South to Charleville will get off at the R515 junction and funnel everyone down to the narrow Smiths Lane junction. Much better having a junction north & south of Charleville and making people decide which direction to approach Charleville from. Similar to the Cashel (M8) setup I think where they have a Cashel South and Cashel North exits.

Ah but sure if there’s no M20 junction then all traffic coming from west of the golf club looking to access the M20 will have to go down Smith’s Lane (as it is currently)?

Here’s what I’d do which was done in 2010 minus the R515 junction

J7: R518 west of O’Rourke’s Cross. Signed Charleville (North) and whatever they plan on signing from O’Rourke’s Cross (Kilmallock/Bruree)

J8: R515. Signed Kanturk/Newmarket etc. No signage for Charleville

J9: Old N20 near Ballyhea. Signed Ballyhea/Charleville (South). Important also for the Lidl centre.

Cashel has 3 junctions, one north and south, and one in the middle used primarily for Clonmel/Fethard to Dublin traffic.

Isambard

neddynasty wrote: »

I don't think a junction with the R515 is a good idea. All that will lead to is everyone travelling from M20 North & South to Charleville will get off at the R515 junction and funnel everyone down to the narrow Smiths Lane junction. Much better having a junction north & south of Charleville and making people decide which direction to approach Charleville from. Similar to the Cashel (M8) setup I think where they have a Cashel South and Cashel North exits.

good point, I suppose a link from the R515 bypassing the Town is out of the question. I would think traffic on Smith's Lane should reduce as the cross Country stream from Macroom/Millstreet is likely to divert on the N72 to the M20 at Mallow.

serfboard

marno21 wrote: »

Here’s what I’d do which was done in 2010 minus the R515 junction

J7: R518 west of O’Rourke’s Cross. Signed Charleville (North) and whatever they plan on signing from O’Rourke’s Cross (Kilmallock/Bruree)

J8: R515. Signed Kanturk/Newmarket etc. No signage for Charleville

J9: Old N20 near Ballyhea. Signed Ballyhea/Charleville (South). Important also for the Lidl centre.

I'm not sure about the last one, but let's keep going anyway. What other junctions are we planning?

J10: R522 for Buttevant (leaving out a connection to the R580 and a northward connection for Kanturk?). Do I remember it right that there was no junction for Buttevant in the first plan (which was crazy, IMO)?

J11: N72 for Mallow

J12: There was talk, IIRC, of two junctions for Mallow, presumably the second being at the R620 for Dromahane etc.?

Are there any more envisoned until we get to Blarney?

marno21

J10: R522 east of Buttevant as you say

J11: N72/N73 near Oliver’s Cross

J12: Old N20 at Mourneabbey for Mallow South

J13: Rathduff/Grenagh

J14: R617 Blarney

J15: M40 North Ring

That’s the 2010 plan with added Buttevant junction. I would not be pushing Kanturk access via Buttevant as the road between the two is a disgrace.

Isambard

marno21 wrote: »

J10: R522 east of Buttevant as you say

J11: N72/N73 near Oliver’s Cross

J12: Old N20 at Mourneabbey for Mallow South

J13: Rathduff/Grenagh

J14: R617 Blarney

J15: M40 North Ring

That’s the 2010 plan with added Buttevant junction. I would not be pushing Kanturk access via Buttevant as the road between the two is a disgrace.

Absolutely, Kanturk and Newmarket will continue to use the N72 from Mallow, accessed by the current N20, which is mostly a quite acceptable route.

cjpm

marno21 wrote: »

J10: R522 east of Buttevant as you say

J11: N72/N73 near Oliver’s Cross

J12: Old N20 at Mourneabbey for Mallow South

J13: Rathduff/Grenagh

J14: R617 Blarney

J15: M40 North Ring

That’s the 2010 plan with added Buttevant junction. I would not be pushing Kanturk access via Buttevant as the road between the two is a disgrace.

That’s a good plan Marno. Good local access with a nicely spaced out junction strategy.

Pete_Cavan

I still don't see what the advantage of going west of Charleville is. At least on the other side a new distributor road can be provided so traffic can move north and south without having to travel through the centre of the town. It would be particularly beneficial for HGVs. It will also serve Kilmallock traffic which is likely to be higher than Kanturk traffic, most of which would use a junction with the N72.

Limerick74

cjpm wrote: »

That’s a good plan Marno. Good local access with a nicely spaced out junction strategy.

Three words: compact urban growth (= less junctions)

Bass Reeves

neddynasty wrote: »

I don't think a junction with the R515 is a good idea. All that will lead to is everyone travelling from M20 North & South to Charleville will get off at the R515 junction and funnel everyone down to the narrow Smiths Lane junction. Much better having a junction north & south of Charleville and making people decide which direction to approach Charleville from. Similar to the Cashel (M8) setup I think where they have a Cashel South and Cashel North exits.

On the general run of towns the size of Charlesville there is usually only one junction. However the Lidl and Rourke Cross may give Charkesville two, highly unlikly it will get three. Gort, Roscrea, Boris-on-Ossary etc all have only one. It would even be possible that one junction one be use at Rourke Cross with Charlesville traffic expected to use this and one South of Charlesville between Lidl and Ballyhea/Buttervant all using one junction.

Isambard

Mitchelstown got two (and a local bypass for the N72 a couple of years earlier)

Reputable Rog

Isambard wrote: »

Mitchelstown got two (and a local bypass for the N72 a couple of years earlier)

N73, just sayin...

Limerick74

Opposition groups getting organised in Limerick

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40193397.html

Isambard

Limerick74 wrote: »

Opposition groups getting organised in Limerick

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40193397.html

NIMBY fest. Someone somewhere isn't going to be happy, although I think it's a bit dramatic to be talking of "taking out houses". Some of the rhetoric was too ridiculous to comment on

rounders

Isambard wrote: »

NIMBY fest. Someone somewhere isn't going to be happy, although I think it's a bit dramatic to be talking of "taking out houses". Some of the rhetoric was too ridiculous to comment on

This is the public consultation phase. The hint is in the name, the time for the public to be consulted.

Instead of blaming everything on NIMBY try to pause a sec and think would you be ok with the motorway knocking your home? I don't get why you think houses being taken is dramatic? There is plenty house that are going to be taken for the road?

Everyone impacted is allowed push back on the route selection and give their views. It's then up to TII to determine the best route with the impact on communities in mind.

steeler j

Talking about battles that happened hundreds of years ago and comparing it to the battle now is over the top . A house is a small price to pay compare to a life,the new motorway will cut down on road deaths and u can replace a house not a family member

Sam Russell

steeler j wrote: »

Talking about battles that happened hundreds of years ago and comparing it to the battle now is over the top . A house is a small price to pay compare to a life, the new motorway will cut down on road deaths and u can replace a house not a family member

One might accept that language if they 'took' houses the way they did in the 1800s - that is they evicted the tenants onto the road, threw out their few possessions, tore the roof off and knocked the walls, all supported by militarised police.

However, now, if their house is subject to a CPO order, the house will be purchased above market value (is it 25%?) and they will be given plenty of notice to move.

Not the same regime at all. However, they have the right to make representations. Fair play to them.

steeler j

Sam Russell wrote: »

One might accept that language if they 'took' houses the way they did in the 1800s - that is they evicted the tenants onto the road, threw out their few possessions, tore the roof off and knocked the walls, all supported by militarised police.

However, now, if their house is subject to a CPO order, the house will be purchased above market value (is it 25%?) and they will be given plenty of notice to move.

Not the same regime at all. However, they have the right to make representations. Fair play to them.

I have no problem with people representing there views but it's the over the top talk accossited with it ,I think there's very little chance the mentioned routes would be picked , what u think of the routes?

Sam Russell

steeler j wrote: »

I have no problem with people representing there views but it's the over the top talk accossited with it ,I think there's very little chance the mentioned routes would be picked , what u think of the routes?

It is the reporting of the few people engaged in the rhetoric that is bad.

Make your opinions known at the consultations, and accept the result. Those are the rules.

I doubt that a motorway would be built over a bog anyway.

niloc1951

steeler j wrote: »

Talking about battles that happened hundreds of years ago and comparing it to the battle now is over the top . A house is a small price to pay compare to a life,the new motorway will cut down on road deaths and u can replace a house not a family member

Saying it's the roads which cause deaths is not quite correct, it's people driving on the roads which causes the deaths. I know its idealistic but if drivers understood and respected their own deficiencies and those of their environment we would have no crashes.
Cue autonomous vehicles in the control of machines not humans.