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

Reading the body of the article I wouldn't consider it all that positive, quite the opposite. Nowhere does he say anything about the road going ahead.

The article say very little and he has more than enough wriggle room which is typical of the man.

And in other pretty disappointing news from the project website, posted on the 7th September:

Sounds like it's still being fought out between the Greens and the others as to whether its the road or one of the rail options that will proceed.

@Hibernicis - there’s nothing negative in that statement. In fact, it reads like the standard boilerplate release at the end of a consultation phase: “We’ve listened to everyone’s comments and concerns, and we will be making some amendments our plans to reflect these. And of course, we care about the environment.”

The Greens are not all-powerful, and there are “green” arguments for road improvements. Here’s one: fuel consumption of freight vehicles depends a lot on the terrain: twisty roads with lots of inclines mean more fuel burnt than a flatter route with more gentle changes of direction.

There is a point where the carbon-emissions cost of building the road is offset by the carbon-emissions savings of lower energy use from the vehicles using it. And that goes double for electric vehicles, whose energy consumption is far more dependent on terrain than a combustion engine.

This is the same justification that is used when constructing new railways: higher emissions in construction in order to save emissions in operation

No, I am not saying “building new roads reduces emissions”. I’m saying is that in the long term, the carbon cost of many road improvements may be negative: especially those that do not significantly increase usage. The transportation sector in Ireland emits 15 million tonnes of CO2 a year, and the vast majority of Irish transportation is by road; freight is a major contributor to this. Even small percentage savings have a large impact here.

As transportation electrifies, the energy savings from road improvements become greater (even renewable electricity isn’t CO2-free, and there will always have to be a small non-renewable contribution to the grid).

Making long-distance routes safer and more energy efficient is a form or road-building that reduces emissions long term; adding more lanes to existing roads just to accommodate commuters is a form of road-building that increases emissions long term.

N20 is in both camps, but the commuter-effect can, and should, be managed, both with a carrot (improved public transport networks at the destination cities, at higher subsidy), and the stick (road user pricing).

The Limerick Junction rail upgrade is welcome, but it won’t do much for people using the N20 corridor. I’d like to see a light-rail or bus-rapid-transport system (i.e., with usable connection-points and simplified fares) in both Cork and Limerick, with park-and-ride at the periphery (because we can’t cod ourselves that half the people working in our cities aren’t living out in the countryside).

Events have overtaken the old plan. One major difference is that the old M20 was designed with provision for an Adare southern bypass which is not going to be there anymore because Adare is now being bypassed to the North by the M21 Rathkeale-Attyflin section of the Limerick-Foynes scheme.

The statement is very negative from the perspective of anybody hoping for a motorway from Cork to Limerick. The decision has been kicked back by at least 4 - 5 months for no good reason and nowhere does it say that the additional time is to take account of "everyone's comments and concerns". Rather is says that the publication of the decision is being delayed "In anticipation of policy updates on sustainable transport infrastructure" which doesn't sound to me like good news for an end to end motorway. Rather it sets the scene for some watered down road improvement scheme with two or three town bypasses and some grandiose CIE/IIR over engineered rail nonsense.

The point is that once you change the scheme, you need to get planning again. The planning was granted for the whole thing, not multiple parts of it.

It makes sense to re-visit the plans after nearly 20 years has gone by to make sure that the assumptions made then are still true. Also, the technologies and methods available now as opposed to the 12 years ago when building was supposed to begin may make it possible to do more with less money.

I don’t like this delay, but at least a redesign delay is going to add something tangible to the project. It’s the delays in hearing planning appeals that I think we need to fix.

It's much more than the delays in hearing appeals. Look at the Galway bypass. Three years after planning permission was sought and it's still pending. The various appeals haven't even begun yet.

Root-and-branch reform is needed. The regulatory hurdles for planning large infrastructure projects must be lowered, and ABP must be given the resources it needs to deliver a decision promptly. On the appeal side, we need dedicated planning courts with the resources to deliver rapid decisions, and a major hike in the difficulty level for achieving a judicial review of an ABP decision (ie, you must be personally affected by a project to be able to object). At the moment, recreational objectors can delay projects at the other end of the country for years, with no penalty if they lose. They need to be forced to put much more skin in the game.

The government are making positive sounds about addressing these points because so many housing developments are being blocked, but it will take years.

I genuinely thought ye were messing when ye said it was delayed again

Even if it did the NRA have only 12 months to serve CPO's after planning is granted. Planning only lasts 5 years anyway

You have 5 years to get started. As long as some progress has been made you can continue. However if you have nothing done you must get planning again.

I was not aware of that. Thanks for the clarification.

Thank you, made no sense to me that projects could be stalled pre planning on the off chance that it doesn't get started within 5 year, (10 with extension).

I thought we all knew what a bad decision it was, on this particular thread! Plenty of us have moaned about it, myself included :D

Optics would be terrible if they base the NDP announcement around the M20, given what's happened with Metrolink and the supposed Green agenda. I'd imagine its in Cork since Busconnects, Suburban Rail improvements and the Docklands infrastructure are funded. I don't see the M20 being excluded but I don't see it being shouted from the rooftops either.

More on the reasons for deferring the decision on the M20, including an interview with the project co-ordinator

Full article here:

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/corkman/news/decision-on-nm20-option-put-off-until-next-year-40854950.html

From the article;

"It will slice through the 87 acre dairy farm of Jimmy Sheehy, who farms in the Golden Vale at Granagh near Banogue, cutting off 21 acres of his land."

The route hasn't even been selected and RTE stating that the road "will" cut through a particular farm. There should be consequences for publishing pure speculation from someone with a vested interest as fact.

@HabibiLibneni I'm not sure what you're suggesting in terms of how to strategise for and counteract determined NIMBYs. There isn't really anything that can be done. Under our current system, NIMBYs can easily hold up any project with frivolous judicial reviews and appeal after appeal after appeal, and the barriers to vexatious delays are so low that they are essentially non-existent. I want development, and live about a kilometre from the N28, but while there is nothing I can do to speed up a project, there are endless ways for someone to stop it.

The only lasting solution will be to reform the planning system to make it easier for planners to meet relevant criteria, to require ABP to deliver faster results, and, critically, to make judicial reviews very difficult to obtain. This will require erecting new barriers, eg not allowing a person to obtain a JR unless they are directly affected by the new road, narrowing significantly the grounds on which a JR can be brought, and bringing back the usual practice of the loser paying for the legal costs of the winner (currently, NIMBYs have no skin in the game, as they don't have to pay a cent of the State's costs when their vexatious appeals are rejected, even after the State has to go to great expense to defend them).

This means significantly restricting the ability of the average citizen to stall the planning process. While NIMBYs may complain, it is indisputable that the current system is not fit for purpose, as it is too open to abuse. I was sympathetic to the argument that locals should have a say, but the M28 debacle was the last straw for me.