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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1148149151153154170

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,164 ✭✭✭zetecescort


    Apologies if it's off topic but isn't there a bypass planned to the north of Mallow? Will this go ahead regardless of any delays to the M20?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,494 ✭✭✭cjpm


    It’s anyone’s guess. Would undoubtedly be cheaper to bundle it in with the M20 however there’s no guarantee that the M20 won’t be held up by dodgy objections.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,536 ✭✭✭touts


    After Eamonn Ryan's comments this week I think you can be fairly sure and An Taisce will set their storm troopers "The Friends of the Irish environment" on the case and it will be tied up in appeals for years.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,193 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    Well hopefully by the time this gets to ABP the government will have streamlined the planning laws and made it more difficult to bring a judicial review.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 574 ✭✭✭Aontachtoir


    Given the way the Greens have FG and FF dancing to their tune, I would be pleasantly surprised if the overhaul of planning laws applies to road projects, but don't see much benefit to the Greens in agreeing to a review that makes roads easier to build.

    I expect only carve-outs for housing and "sustainable infrastructure", with the definition of "sustainable" designed in such a way that it effectively excludes most road projects, and no significant change elsewhere.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,193 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    I'm curious as to how you see FF and FG dancing to the Greens tune. If the Greens actually had their way the M20 (and many other roads projects) would be dead in the water. If anything it looks to me like the Greens have gotten nothing more than face saving measures included in the NDP. There's nothing really in there, even from the rail side, that wasn't already announced previously.

    The fact that infrastructural planning will hopefully become more streamlined doesn't mean that only infrastructural planning law is being reviewed. The overhauling of the laws will apply to the whole planning system. It's all unfit for purpose.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,494 ✭✭✭cjpm


    Pigs might fly more like. Have you ever seen an Irish Government actually get anything done. Commission a report and fudge.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    So the answer to planning delays is the removal of rights? Likely to fail challenge per Aarhaus Convention

    Be careful what you wish for, you might find an incinerator plonked beside your gaff

    Anyway, the biggest issue with planning delays is lack of resources in the planning depts, courts, ABP etc. If these were staffed appropriately then the delays would be minimal



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,193 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    Streamling the planning process and making it more difficult to take a judicial review does not automatically equate to the removal of rights. Other European countries are well able to follow Aarhaus Convention without all the ridiculous delays we have here.

    Quite a lot of JRs taken in this country are NIMBYs using the AR as an excuse for their NIMBYism. The M28 debacle is a quite obvious example.

    And I wouldn't actually be too bothered by an incinerator in my vicinity. Theyre seen as pretty normal in the rest of Europe.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,757 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Aarhus gives you the right to a legal review of decisions taken, but that does not have to specifically be a Judicial Review, which is usually concerned with errors in legal process.

    If you brought such legal reviews into a normal planning process, and made them automatic for projects above a certain size, it would not only make it easier to predict how long the legal permissions process would take, but it also would reduce the possibilities of submitting spurious requests just to delay a project.

    The root of the problem is an understaffing in ABP. Fix that, and large projects attracting lots of submissions (and 99% of these are genuine concerns from people who will be directly affected by the scheme in some way) can be processed quickly.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,042 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    I think these recent posts should be moved to the Planning delays to infrastructure thread



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 574 ✭✭✭Aontachtoir


    I don't think understaffing at ABP is the root of the problem. It's one of the roots, definitely, but not the only one. The M28 was approved in just over a year (far too slow, obviously), but the real hold-up was in the judicial review process, which held up permission from July 2018 to March 2021. ABP could have delivered its decision in a day and the statutory process would still have dragged on for nearly three years.

    The real root of the problem is that there are too many ways to slow down planning in this country. It has become a vetocracy, where anyone can stick their oar in and bring the process to a halt. We need a simple, streamlined decision process that delivers rapid, final decisions. Speed up ABP with more resources, definitely, but the legal avenues to overturn planning permission must be drastically narrowed and compressed into a shorter timeframe.

    @Cookiemunster By "dancing to the Greens' tune" I mean that the other coalition parties have agreed to lock the M20 and other road projects behind a further set of arbitrary justification criteria, this time on climate, which seem intended to stall road projects to such an extent that they are never delivered, but are also never cancelled. Maybe it will not work out like that in practice.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,241 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    I didn't see it that way regarding parties "dancing to the Green's tune, rather I also saw it the same way that Cookiemunster did, that the Greens got very little actually changed here, just wrapped their acceptance of the M20 in a little green veneer, in order to not lose too much face. I don't see how anyone, "green" or not can reasonably argue against the M20. I know lots of people who regularly submit against roads projects, who are fully accepting of the need for an M20. It's one of those road projects where the numbers just stack up.

    I think it's not the "greens" or the "anti roads/cars" people but the NIMBY objections that have to be dealt with, where the M20 is concerned.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 574 ✭✭✭Aontachtoir


    I think @Cookiemunster and your interpretations are reasonable, but I really don't think the new "climate-positive projects only!" restriction is just going to fade away as quietly as you seem to think when the time comes to give the M20 the final go-ahead. It's a barrier which is clearly aimed at preventing road projects from proceeding, because even if the numbers add up from a safety and business point of view for the M20 (which they absolutely do), it is intended to arbitrarily tip the scales in the other direction. With carbon budgets soon being placed on departments, how hard do you think it will be for the Greens to say "oops, we'd love to build the M20, but there just isn't enough carbon in the budget for it?"

    The problem with the "anti-roads/cars" people and the NIMBYs is that they both have the exact same power to delay and overturn planning permission, and both abuse that power heavily. There is no meaningful difference between them at the end of the day.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,193 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    The Greens won't be in government when it gets to the point that money needs to be made available to build this road. They've committed to allowing it through the planning process which will take us to the end of the term of this government.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    which will take us to the end of the term of this government.

    You'll be lucky if they have a route selected and designed by then



  • Registered Users Posts: 828 ✭✭✭pajoguy


    They have run a design on all the corridors already to put costs on all the different options. it wouldn't be detailed designs but would give them a reasonable cost (unlike Eamon Ryans 1b to 3b jump in the last few months). It just gives them ideas of the cut and fills and road, river, rail crossings etc. They had a route selected already until the sustainable transport infrastructure policy updates were brought into play.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,241 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    Yep you could be right but I sure hope you're wrong!

    Maybe a way back around that "tactic" could be to heavily invest in the sustainable transport on the corridor, also.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8 David Tucker


    Hi

    I really like user hibernicus map/sceenshot of munster on the previous page.

    As we all agree, the problem is mallow and charleville, the opportunity is to create a munster economic area.

    If we had the connectivity the wider area may develop around this corridor.

    One example is that Shannon Airport is a real option for everybody and another is ringaskiddy and even rosslare (with a bit more connections) become viable ports



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,757 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Extending Shannon Airport’s catchment down to Cork City is one of the goals for the Limerick City rail plan. That benefit also applies to the M20 to the same extent (i.e. not a lot, but it would help both airports to counterbalance the draw of Dublin if they were only an hour and a half apart from each other).

    What’s holding Ringaskiddy back is N28. M28, when completed, will funnel traffic onto M8, so to make N20 an advantage, the N20/N8 link of the Cork Northern Ring needs to be done too. (M28 and M20 will probably complete around the same time)

    M20 being there or not doesn’t affect Rosslare at all: if you’re going Rosslare-Cork or Rosslare-Limerick, there are more direct routes (N24 and N25, respectively). N24 will be fully upgraded in the same timeframe as M20.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell




  • Registered Users Posts: 469 ✭✭Limerick74




  • Registered Users Posts: 828 ✭✭✭pajoguy


    2 crashes this week on the N20 between patriskwell and O'Rourkes Cross



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭nordydan


    I think a lot of drivers would accept a Type 2 dual with some minor GSJ if construction was guaranteed



  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Not sure what the farmers angle is here. Their land is going to be CPO’d no matter what the road standard is. The idea the existing road is going to be widened has been dismissed from day 1.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,494 ✭✭✭cjpm


    I was reading that the Austrians and the Italians are boring 2 No. 110km long rail tunnels through the Alps. A project that will take 20 years and cost €8 billion euros.

    Yes that’s right, tunnels through fractured rock and through a fault line between two plates. And all other access and maintenance tunnels included too.

    Yet our Minister of Transport is peddling a lie that an 80km motorway through good quality farm land is going to cost us €3 billion. He’s a disgrace and his incompetence will harm the country



  • Registered Users Posts: 469 ✭✭Limerick74




  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,193 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    The Examiner pushing the obviously BS €3bn figure that Ryan has been spouting in both articles. I'll never understand their agenda against this road.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 469 ✭✭Limerick74




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,963 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    That article just sums up all we know already and puts a hysterical headline on it.

    I think even Eamon Ryan knows this road is needed - the question is what quality. It should be M20 by all rights, but we may end up with 2+2 or a silly mixture. With some railway upgrades included too, which TBH wouldn't hurt either.



  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Those 2 articles have slow news day written all over them. Nothing new in there



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,339 ✭✭✭alias no.9


    Whatever you might think of the M28 Steering Group, I personally think that they have done huge harm in delaying infrastructure, they at least had a public and online presence beyond press releases.

    This campaign group trying to reroute the M20 via Cahir claims to represent 1500 landowners, businesspeople and farmers yet there is no online presence. I'm deliberately not using their name because there are so few search hits for them.

    They have the PR skills to get repeated statements and interviews in national media but the lack of any evidence of them publicising a public meeting would suggest that there has never been a public meeting because they seem to know how to get messages out there when they want to. The only name that seems to be associated with them is their Chairperson, who else is a member?

    Are our Journalists capable of doing the slightest of background checks any more or do they just regurgitate press releases?

    Post edited by alias no.9 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,963 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    I thought you all might appreciate knowing that I had a dream about the M20 last night. Not that it was built in my dream, oh no.

    The route recommendation turned out to be the Mitchelstown - Limerick routing, or the navy routing in the dream. Not only was it a terrible option, but they swung west to avoid some of the hills near Mitchelstown, but ended up going over a mountain that was over 700m in height that happened to be the westernmost.

    That was about it, but it was an interesting dream nonetheless.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,968 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    That wasn't a dream it was a nightmare you had🤣🤣🤣

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,621 ✭✭✭Hibernicis




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,720 ✭✭✭serfboard


    “It’s a treacherous road and for it to have been left like this, for all these years with the amount of people, young and old, that have been killed on it, it’s just a disgrace.”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 233 ✭✭Heartbreak Hank


    Any indication of when the preferred route will be announced?



  • Registered Users Posts: 828 ✭✭✭pajoguy


    Early Q1 2022



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭Murph85


    I read an article earlier saying only 5000 cars were expected to travel between cork and limerick on the new m20.. is that true?!


    https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/ireland-s-deadliest-road-it-s-like-she-s-frozen-now-forever-at-29-1.4739121



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,193 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    I don't know about the 5000 number, but most of the traffic on the road is commuter traffic into the cities at each end rather than actually traveling from city to city.

    There is however quite a lot of end to end traffic which avoids the current road and travels via Mitchelstown instead. You would assume that this traffic would switch to the better, shorter M20 once it's completed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭Murph85


    If the 3 billion price tag is accurate, it seems a staggering amount for the relatively minuscule numbers that will use it...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 574 ✭✭✭Aontachtoir


    The article explains why that figure is misleading almost directly after it is first mentioned. It might be worth taking another read of it.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,193 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    The €3bn price tag is nothing but Green propaganda. It says in the article it would be around €1.4bn

    And you must have missed this section.

    “When you are designing a road, you just don’t count the traffic end to end, you count all the intermediate stages as well. So while there may be 3,000 to 5,000 vehicles a day from Limerick making the full journey to Cork, you have much higher volumes on other sections.

    “We get around 17,000 vehicles coming into Limerick at the northern end. It starts to drop down gradually then towards Charleville and Buttevant, to around 13,000 a day. But then it ramps up to 17,000 or 18,000 around Mallow and from Blarney into Cork then it’s up to around 25,000 a day.

    “And what is more significant is that some sections are just over capacity – sections where you have no hard shoulders and a lot of junctions and accesses. Even at the middle section, where volume is lowest, 13,000, that’s still 5,000 over capacity and in some places it’s far worse than that.

    Did you actually read the whole article?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,968 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves



    No he didn't read the article. He just came in with a set attitude and just ignored the data. He pulled a bit of missleading data and tried to use this as s reason to knock the need for a road.

    The figures in that article are staggering. I was under the impression from other data I saw that There was about 10k equivalent end to end journey's. From this article it's even 13k in mid section and way higher at the ends

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,757 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    A relief-map will show you why. N20 goes through a narrow plain between the Ballyhoura (to the east) and Mullaghareirk (to the west) mountains: anyone living north or south of this natural pass will use N20, because as bad as it is, it’s still the best road in the area.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭Murph85


    Also yes, I did read the entire article... those figures are fine a lot of money and the project should obviously NEVER have been shelved back in 2011. It was typical irish political idiocy... But if it were 3 billion, and i am not saying it will be... But that is a SERIOUS amount of money, for the relatively small amount of journeys on the road...



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,193 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    So even after it was pointed to you more than once, you still choose to ignore the fact that the road is not about end to end traffic? You ignore the fact that even the quietest section of the road is 5000 vehicles over capacity each day? That there are 17,000 vehicles a day at the Croom end and 25000 a day the the Blarney end? I'd suggest that you have an agenda and you're sticking to it.

    Even if it did cost €3bn it would be good value for money because it will save people lives and it will be there for the next century. This Irish obsession with the cost of infrastructural projects that will last generations is fúcking infuriating.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭Murph85


    The run away costs are a disgrace, if this thing is going to be built. It should be built asap! before costs continue to escalate, the same with dublin metro etc. But the reality is, nor you or I or anyone knows the final costs, we dont have a crystal ball! But what is an absolute disgrace is, the political can kicking, that have seen many lives lost and likely over half a billion euro increase, for the exact same road! It is an absolute disgrace!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,494 ✭✭✭cjpm


    Forget the €3 billion estimate, its a complete fabrication.

    Eamonn Ryan pulled that figure out of his arse to try and turn public opinion against the scheme.


    TII appointed a new chairman, a Welsh man. Best of luck to him, at least he comes from a country with proper road infrastructure.


    From the Indo

    “Limerick TD Kieran O’Donnell who chaired the meeting sought a commitment that Mr Llewellyn would drive from Limerick to Cork to see for himself why representatives from the region were admant a motorway must be built between the cities.”



  • Advertisement
Advertisement