Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1228229231233234276

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,858 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    I would say "quite likely" and that the final route will be similar to the 2010 version. It'll use the south "half" of the Croom bypass and then head north slightly offline from there before hitting the current M20.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    I would say "quite likely" and that the final route will be similar to the 2010 version. It'll use the south "half" of the Croom bypass and then head north slightly offline from there before hitting the current M20.

    that's how I see it, one junction further west than the current N20 junction , leaving the N20 (re-designated as Rxxx) to run into Croom village and out again to access the current road, turning the clock back pretty much on that route.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16 PKB1


    Isambard wrote: »
    that's how I see it, one junction further west than the current N20 junction , leaving the N20 (re-designated as Rxxx) to run into Croom village and out again to access the current road, turning the clock back pretty much on that route.

    Does anyone know if the previous planning submission stated that using the current Croom bypass would save a lot of expense versus going off line?


  • Registered Users Posts: 792 ✭✭✭pajoguy


    PKB1 wrote: »
    Does anyone know if the previous planning submission stated that using the current Croom bypass would save a lot of expense versus going off line?

    The last proposal using the existing bypass meant new roads seperate to that would have to be built to serve the croom junction that was supposed to double up to serve the southern bypass of Adare. I doubt much money would have been saved.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,764 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    It would be mad not to incorporate the Croom bypass into the new road. There are only two roads crossing it and but are grade separated, this makes it ideal for the new road but would serve no real purpose as an R road as it would do very little to distribute traffic.

    The bypass should be upgraded, the existing junction closed (or off ramps only retained) and a new motorway GSJ built further north and a new link road on the northern side of the town.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16 PKB1


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    It would be mad not to incorporate the Croom bypass into the new road. There are only two roads crossing it and but are grade separated, this makes it ideal for the new road but would serve no real purpose as an R road as it would do very little to distribute traffic.

    The bypass should be upgraded, the existing junction closed (or off ramps only retained) and a new motorway GSJ built further north and a new link road on the northern side of the town.

    I think last time they planned an R road parallel to the motorway on the Croom bypass. Would that still be on the cards this time? Any idea?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    PKB1 wrote: »
    I think last time they planned an R road parallel to the motorway on the Croom bypass. Would that still be on the cards this time? Any idea?

    the old road North of Croom* is a good straight road, I suppose it depends how willing they are to allow local traffic to run via the double bend that is Croom Bridge. From the Bridge south , the old road is closed off but it looks like it could be re-opened to link to the existing road south of Croom.

    *the bypass proper is south of the junction of this road with the N20, the section north of that was a very early widening, 1980s


  • Registered Users Posts: 16 PKB1


    Isambard wrote: »
    the old road North of Croom* is a good straight road, I suppose it depends how willing they are to allow local traffic to run via the double bend that is Croom Bridge. From the Bridge south , the old road is closed off but it looks like it could be re-opened to link to the existing road south of Croom.

    *the bypass proper is south of the junction of this road with the N20, the section north of that was a very early widening, 1980s

    Thanks for that. I don’t know if they would revert to putting local traffic through Croom. Saying that though nothing would surprise me.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,356 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    540898.JPG

    Here's what was planned in 2009, with some cavaets:

    1. The entire length of grade separated Croom bypass reused (the Croom bypass from the R516 junction (as is now) to Anhid Cross is NOT grade separated).
    2. A new Croom interchange where the Croom BP meets the old N20 north of Croom (including N21 Adare bypass)
    3. An new link road running beside the Croom bypass from the Adare Road to the existing R516 junction which would be shut.
    4. The existing N20 would be realigned to meet the R516 + new link rad at the old Croom junction and would run broadly along the existing N20 corridor south of the R516 junction, with the M20 running east along this corridor and later crossing the old N20 at Anhid Cross. The exact detail of this isn't there because of the corridor widths.

    Based on the following, it's important to consider the following for 2021:

    1. No Adare bypass this time.
    2. Different layout of the M20/M21 junction a few km to the north
    3. Where is the Croom junction best placed this time?
    4. Will the link road (also known as the Croom Western Distributor Route) be included as before along the same layout? Lots of routes like this planned back in the day to open up land for development but this isn't as common anymore


  • Registered Users Posts: 16 PKB1


    marno21 wrote: »
    540898.JPG

    Here's what was planned in 2009, with some cavaets:

    1. The entire length of grade separated Croom bypass reused (the Croom bypass from the R516 junction (as is now) to Anhid Cross is NOT grade separated).
    2. A new Croom interchange where the Croom BP meets the old N20 north of Croom (including N21 Adare bypass)
    3. An new link road running beside the Croom bypass from the Adare Road to the existing R516 junction which would be shut.
    4. The existing N20 would be realigned to meet the R516 + new link rad at the old Croom junction and would run broadly along the existing N20 corridor south of the R516 junction, with the M20 running east along this corridor and later crossing the old N20 at Anhid Cross. The exact detail of this isn't there because of the corridor widths.

    Based on the following, it's important to consider the following for 2021:

    1. No Adare bypass this time.
    2. Different layout of the M20/M21 junction a few km to the north
    3. Where is the Croom junction best placed this time?
    4. Will the link road (also known as the Croom Western Distributor Route) be included as before along the same layout? Lots of routes like this planned back in the day to open up land for development but this isn't as common anymore

    Thanks for that. As you point out the lack of Adare bypass could probably change the whole layout.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    I think the best they could do would be to keep the alignment of the Croom bypass, but the junctions don't make as much sense anymore once the Adare Bypass has been re-routed elsewhere.

    The span of the bridge at the Ballingarry junction doesn't seem wide enough to accommodate even a 2+2 road beneath, so it would have to be removed or replaced for a motorway - I think it's the wrong place to put a motorway junction for Croom, as it would drive traffic for points East of Croom right through the centre of the village again, and we're back to the bad old days of the 1990s.

    I'd make that a simple overbridge (remove the slip-roads), and have one junction off M20, roughly where the Ballyourgan overbridge is, to serve Croom. (i.e., move "Croom Junction" closer to Croom, and delete the other junctions.)


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,764 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    I would have thought building a new junction south of the river with a new link road extending east, crossing the river and tying into the new road already developing on the eastern side of the town. That allows traffic to move around the town without actually having to go through it. As part of widening to motorway, provide a new parallel road on the western side to link back into the existing roads at the bridge and close the existing junction.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    I'd prefer to the north of the river simply to avoid the cost of another bridge for that link-road.

    The plan Marno posted does contain the parallel road you describe - that should be kept. Actually, now I look closer at it, it's obvious that the 2009 plan was to do pretty much what I suggested with the current Croom junction: on the plan, that bridge would not have been connected to the motorway - it was kept simply to allow the various parallel access roads to cross the main line of the motorway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,764 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    KrisW1001 wrote: »
    I'd prefer to the north of the river simply to avoid the cost of another bridge for that link-road.

    The plan Marno posted does contain the parallel road you describe - that should be kept. Actually, now I look closer at it, it's obvious that the 2009 plan was to do pretty much what I suggested with the current Croom junction: on the plan, that bridge would not have been connected to the motorway - it was kept simply to allow the various parallel access roads to cross the main line of the motorway.

    If the junction is north of the bridge, you probably still require a bridge over the river for a parallel road plus the parallel road is then longer. I don't see the logic in having the junction 2km from the town when it could be <1km from it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭betistuc


    What are the chances of ALL road construction being suspended while the Government waits to see if the EU are going to insist on us driving on the right here. Topic was discussed on RTE Drivetime yesterday. Malta and Cyprus could also be forced as well. Just a thought!


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,939 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    betistuc wrote: »
    What are the chances of ALL road construction being suspended while the Government waits to see if the EU are going to insist on us driving on the right here. Topic was discussed on RTE Drivetime yesterday. Malta and Cyprus could also be forced as well. Just a thought!

    Wtf are you on about.

    ⛥ ̸̱̼̞͛̀̓̈́͘#C̶̼̭͕̎̿͝R̶̦̮̜̃̓͌O̶̬͙̓͝W̸̜̥͈̐̾͐Ṋ̵̲͔̫̽̎̚͠ͅT̸͓͒͐H̵͔͠È̶̖̳̘͍͓̂W̴̢̋̈͒͛̋I̶͕͑͠T̵̻͈̜͂̇Č̵̤̟̑̾̂̽H̸̰̺̏̓ ̴̜̗̝̱̹͛́̊̒͝⛥



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,225 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Kite flying not logistically possible and even if it happened it would have an 6-10+ year lead in time

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭betistuc


    Stark wrote: »
    Wtf are you on about.




    Do you have trouble reading. I thought it was pretty clear


  • Posts: 596 [Deleted User]


    betistuc wrote: »
    Do you have trouble reading. I thought it was pretty clear

    It is clear, but it’s complete ballcocks


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,856 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    Jaysus, this is like the nonsense that the English anti EU press used to come out with. Did this story originate in the Irish Daily Mail by any chance?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    betistuc wrote: »
    What are the chances of ALL road construction being suspended while the Government waits to see if the EU are going to insist on us driving on the right here. Topic was discussed on RTE Drivetime yesterday. Malta and Cyprus could also be forced as well. Just a thought!
    Here's another thought: maybe you could open a new thread, and call it "Chances of Ireland driving on the right?" or something, so that people won't accidentally click on it if they want to read about how the M20 is progressing...


  • Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭betistuc


    KrisW1001 wrote: »
    Here's another thought: maybe you could open a new thread, and call it "Chances of Ireland driving on the right?" or something, so that people won't accidentally click on it if they want to read about how the M20 is progressing...




    Very hostile on this thread. Fair enough, I'll leave you all to your irrelevant speculation re M20 . Just remember where you heard it when it happens. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,126 ✭✭✭✭JCX BXC


    betistuc wrote: »
    Very hostile on this thread. Fair enough, I'll leave you all to your irrelevant speculation re M20 . Just remember where you heard it when it happens. :)

    That's more conspiracy theoriest than anything else!


  • Registered Users Posts: 16 PKB1


    KrisW1001 wrote: »
    I think the best they could do would be to keep the alignment of the Croom bypass, but the junctions don't make as much sense anymore once the Adare Bypass has been re-routed elsewhere.

    The span of the bridge at the Ballingarry junction doesn't seem wide enough to accommodate even a 2+2 road beneath, so it would have to be removed or replaced for a motorway - I think it's the wrong place to put a motorway junction for Croom, as it would drive traffic for points East of Croom right through the centre of the village again, and we're back to the bad old days of the 1990s.

    I'd make that a simple overbridge (remove the slip-roads), and have one junction off M20, roughly where the Ballyourgan overbridge is, to serve Croom. (i.e., move "Croom Junction" closer to Croom, and delete the other junctions.)

    Kris, I agree that Ballourgan is the place to put the junction and keep a parallel local road to Anhid cross where the M20 would verge off line.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Mod: Driving on the left is here for ever. The cost of the changeover would be astronomical. There are no plans to change. It is off topic for this thread.

    Thank you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl



    Dual Carriageway from Blarney to Mallow?
    I don't like that very much tbh. Motorway plus dedicated secondary route for slow moving traffic would be my preference.

    Edit: reading the whole article, the general gist is basically "leave the road alone" unfortunately.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    Dual Carriageway from Blarney to Mallow?
    I don't like that very much tbh. Motorway plus dedicated secondary route for slow moving traffic would be my preference.

    Edit: reading the whole article, the general gist is basically "leave the road alone" unfortunately.

    All I’m getting from 90% of the article is NIMBYism


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,356 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    I would just ignore that article if I were you. It’s all NIMBYism complete with:

    A lack of understanding of the differences between road types among non road engineers (which could be resolved by explaining this stuff)
    The same concept from the M28 that “motorways” carry more traffic than “dual carriageways”
    A lack of understanding that south of Rathduff what’s planned is an upgrade of the N20, not a 300m wide strip of tarmac carrying all and sundry in its path

    That Councillor from Charleville has always been pro relief road for Charleville rather than M20, nothing new there.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    Take a look at the comments on the echo Facebook page, comments are being deleted as well by the looks of it


Advertisement