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

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

Was there any discussion about the existing line to LJ, and removing the LC gates and dualling the line?

This is planned as part of LSMATS anyway. There are upgrades already underway on the line between Thurles and Cork also, so once they're done a pretty decent Direct Cork-Limerick rail link will be completed by default anyway, an hourly 70 minute long journey would be a nice boost

rounders

spacetweek wrote: »

Hi all. I had a video consultation on the M20 scheme with a guy from the project team yesterday. Informative and he really knew his sh*t.

Thanks for that! I wasn't going to bother with a consultation but since it sounds like it's actually worth doing I just booked in for tomorrow at 2:30. You sound like you're up the Limerick end, I'm down the Cork end so I'll see if I can gather more info for this end of the route

rounders

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/arid-40202702.html

Just seen this on the Echo. Two public meetings for the two cork route

AugustusMinimus

rounders wrote: »

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/arid-40202702.html

Just seen this on the Echo. Two public meetings for the two cork route

Love how they name the routes yet give f all information on the routes themselves.

rounders

Just had my consultation. My person didn't seem to be as knowledgeable as spacetweek's but here's the few notes

- July/August Route Selection

- No decision yet on whether it's going to be a Duel Carriageway or Motorway. Still very much up in the air

- No decision yet on junctions, asked about Junctions for accessing Mallow and was told no decision yet on the number of Junctions to serve the town but she did mention the need for access to the Killarney Road traffic without having to go through the town and how a junction at N72 will cause too much through traffic for the town

- No decision on how the road will terminate on either end. They are doing traffic assessments of how it will be with and without a North Ring Road on the Cork end. They have no influence on the NRR fast tracked to be considered along with this road. They can only submit the traffic figures but I'd imagine that in itself would have a impact on whether or not the NRR is built

- She made similar comment to spacetweek's person about it not being all about cost when I asked about which route is the front runner.

- CPO discussions to begin by the end of 2021

- 2024 for ABP like spacetweek said above

Like I said, not as much insights as spacetweek but if anyone is on the fence about whether to have a consultation it is probably still worth it. Only takes 30 mins

Isambard

I imagine it would seamlessly join the N20 at Blarney. It's not coming in to a NRR junction at this stage.

Chris_5339762

They really dropped the ball on this one... the M20 should start at the M8 near Glanmire, consist of the eastern side of the North Ring, link up with Blarney and then head north from there. The North Ring (or Northern Distributor as well) will end up coming years after the M20 and you'll end up with the ridiculous situation where to get from the M20 to the M8, the N25 and the N40, you have to toddle through Mayfield. It'll be awful.

It could be relabelled the N40 or M40 then whenever the western bit gets built.

Aontachtoir

rounders wrote: »

- No decision yet on whether it's going to be a Duel Carriageway or Motorway. Still very much up in the air

They really haven't decided if the road is going to be a motorway? I just assumed it would be.

spacetweek

pigtown wrote: »

That's interesting. Did he say why Colbert Station couldn't handle the extra trains?
Also, where was the Guinness terminal?

It was just that the angle of approach and buildings in the way would make it awkward. I presume the Guinness terminal is the vacant ground to the south of the station here.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Was there any discussion about the existing line to LJ, and removing the LC gates and dualling the line?

Was there any view on Luas type use of the old alignment out towards Croom? Obviously, it would need to go across the city towards the University, or out towards the Ennis Road or both rather than just going to Colbert.

At a different zoom meeting I attended hosted by a Limerick TD, it was confirmed that Irish Rail are actively looking at L-LJ improvements including double tracking. There was a rep from IR there. That meeting gave me the distinct impression that the plan is to run the railway service via LJ and that the new-build rail segments are just for show.
The old Croom alignment has buildings on it now.

rounders wrote: »

Thanks for that! I wasn't going to bother with a consultation but since it sounds like it's actually worth doing I just booked in for tomorrow at 2:30. You sound like you're up the Limerick end, I'm down the Cork end so I'll see if I can gather more info for this end of the route

I'm actually from Dublin! I mainly did the meeting for the sake of my website.

rounders

Aontachtoir wrote: »

They really haven't decided if the road is going to be a motorway? I just assumed it would be.

Supposedly. I really really hope it's a motorway though to have us future proofed.

They said all documentation they have says it can be either Motorway or duel carrigeway

Isambard

HQ Dual Carriageway and Motorway are virtually the same bar the colour of the signs and some of the regulations such as no stopping. The actual road would be identical.

Limerick74

Isambard wrote: »

HQ Dual Carriageway and Motorway are virtually the same bar the colour of the signs and some of the regulations such as no stopping. The actual road would be identical.

That is technically correct. However, the difference will be the additional parallel link roads to cater for non-motorway traffic where existing local roads are not available or suitable.

niloc1951

Isambard wrote: »

HQ Dual Carriageway and Motorway are virtually the same bar the colour of the signs and some of the regulations such as no stopping. The actual road would be identical.

Don't forget construction and agricultural machinery and other vehicles not capable of travelling faster than 50km/h, can use a dual carriageway creating rolling roadblocks on lane 1 with resulting queues on lane 2, a curse on the 120km/h section of the N25 at present.

Ball boy

Is there a difference in the width of area taken from a CPO point of view between a dual carriage way and a motorway?

AugustusMinimus

Ball boy wrote: »

Is there a difference in the width of area taken from a CPO point of view between a dual carriage way and a motorway?

If done via an online build, a second road for non motorway traffic would need to be constructed in the case of a motorway.

It would be utter lunacy to build an online DC instead of a motorway.

cjpm

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

If done via an online build, a second road for non motorway traffic would need to be constructed in the case of a motorway.

It would be utter lunacy to build an online DC instead of a motorway.

I'd say the days of high quality dual carriageway new builds are coming to an end. Crazy having traffic travelling at 120KPH on a road shared with cyclists, tractors etc

Pete_Cavan

Could the first mention of dual carriageway in this conversation be referring to 2+2 rather than HQDC?

Cork Trucker

cjpm wrote: »

I'd say the days of high quality dual carriageway new builds are coming to an end. Crazy having traffic travelling at 120KPH on a road shared with cyclists, tractors etc

First thing that comes to mind is Donal O'Brien on the Ballincollig Bypass

Cork Trucker

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Could the first mention of dual carriageway in this conversation be referring to 2+2 rather than HQDC?

I'd say anything now at this stage to shut the Greens up and keep the bill down, they don't want this road going ahead

AugustusMinimus

It’s the main road between the 2nd and 3rd cities in the state.

I assume 2+2 must be considered but will get rejected in favour of motorway.

2+2 would have tractors, cyclists and even pedestrians on an inter urban. Crazy.

hans aus dtschl

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

It’s the main road between the 2nd and 3rd cities in the state.

I assume 2+2 must be considered but will get rejected in favour of motorway.

2+2 would have tractors, cyclists and even pedestrians on an inter urban. Crazy.

Coming at it from the completely opposite side, not having a proper secondary route for cyclists/tractors/pedestrians is crazy too.

Isambard

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Coming at it from the completely opposite side, not having a proper secondary route for cyclists/tractors/pedestrians is crazy too.

well if it's Motorway built on line, that will be provided. If it's offline there's no need for a secondary route to be built

hans aus dtschl

Isambard wrote: »

well if it's Motorway built on line, that will be provided. If it's offline there's no need for a secondary route to be built

Yep, hence my tentative preference for an offline build.

Sam Russell

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Yep, hence my tentative preference for an offline build.

My preference is for a build - any route and now.

hans aus dtschl

Sam Russell wrote: »

My preference is for a build - any route and now.

I had sort of glossed over that aspect of it.
I'm also heavily in favour of a build. I'd just prefer an M20 instead of an N20 HQDC.

Sam Russell

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I had sort of glossed over that aspect of it.
I'm also heavily in favour of a build. I'd just prefer an M20 instead of an N20 HQDC.

I accept that - I was just emphasising the NOW bit.

AugustusMinimus

Sam Russell wrote: »

I accept that - I was just emphasising the NOW bit.

I prefer to see it done right first time instead of NOW. We have a habit in this country of doing things half arsed. The last thing I want to see is a 2+2 followed by a spate of cyclist deaths.

Sam Russell

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I prefer to see it done right first time instead of NOW. We have a habit in this country of doing things half arsed. The last thing I want to see is a 2+2 followed by a spate of cyclist deaths.

I would say we have a habit of planning something wonderful and then planning the same something even better, and then finding it is too expensive, and cancelling the project only to bring the project back up again after a few decades, and starting again with a blank page.

The M20 has already been planned a decade ago. The Dart expansion was planned 5 decades ago. Dart underground got as far as a railway order before being cancelled and redesigned and cancelled. Metro North was fully planned before it was cancelled and redesigned.

Build it NOW - it will do, rather than trying to get it right to satisfy the perfectionists but not built.

KrisW1001

A 2+2 would require a separate segregated cycleway. That's the design standard in force now.

(I think 2+2 would be shortsighted, and a Motorway is the way to go, but whichever it ends up being, there won't be cyclists on it)

AugustusMinimus

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would say we have a habit of planning something wonderful and then planning the same something even better, and then finding it is too expensive, and cancelling the project only to bring the project back up again after a few decades, and starting again with a blank page.

The M20 has already been planned a decade ago. The Dart expansion was planned 5 decades ago. Dart underground got as far as a railway order before being cancelled and redesigned and cancelled. Metro North was fully planned before it was cancelled and redesigned.

Build it NOW - it will do, rather than trying to get it right to satisfy the perfectionists but not built.

The M20 wasn’t shelved because of cost. It was put back to design because of pressure from Buttevant locals who wanted a junction for the town.

Again, this was a huge oversight. It should have been done right from the start but wasn’t.

Anyways, the bigger story in this country is not doing things right day 1. In the Netherlands they don’t think twice about building stacks for motorway junctions. In this country we get a 3 grade roundabout. Crazy.

We’re about to spend 200m on the Dunkettle roundabout built only 25 years ago. More lunacy.