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

Reminder, webinar at 7pm today, link is included in the above post

I sent on the following questions:

Hi

I really appreciate the comprehensive update issued on the 24th  June. It answers a lot of questions and it’s great to see the project progressing.

I have a few questions for the Webinar this evening:

The design includes a Freight Hub in Mallow and “A small amount of vehicle parking will also be provided for active travel and park and share.” Why not provide a full Transport Hub in addition to the Freight Hub in Mallow ?

Where does the project’s responsibility end in relation to the Transport hubs – will these be finished to allow full operational use from day 1 (e.g. surfaced, lined, lighting and charging provided, bicycle racking etc) and will the project include responsibility for ensuring that transport providers (i.e. bus services) will be operating from day 1 ? What security features will be provided at the hubs ?

Will the Mallow Relief Road continue as a separate project or will it be incorporated into the M20 project, given that the two meet at Mallow Junction ?

What provision has been made to upgrade the R522 between Buttevant Junction and Buttevant Main Street, and what type of junction is planned where the R522 meets Buttevant Main Street ?

In the absence of a junction to either the immediate north or west of Charleville, what provisions are being made to ensure the free flow of traffic to/from the R515 and Charleville Junction, and to avoid bottlenecking where the R515 meets Charleville Main Street ?

Accepting that the responsibility for setting toll charges rests elsewhere, what is the project team’s view on the level of charging for each of the segments and for an end to end journey, with reference to the current charges on the following roads:

I did join the webinar but have been travelling. Will post a summary later today.

What are they on about ? Why on earth will the M20 development "drive between 8000 to 10000 HGV’s every year into the village" ?

Useless article, picking up a soundbite from a TD and then dropping the point and regurgitating the contents of a generic M/N20 press release.

But but but….

What about the truck depot? The one in the very middle of Patrickswell? This is why we can't have nice things: a horrendously planned village (was there any planning at all?) simultaneously wants loads of traffic and no traffic.

“Also, having a toll will force some potential road users off the motorway onto regional and local roads which is not desirable and counterproductive,”

I wonder did Collins even read/understand the what is being proposed. The proposal for "A modest toll for each of the junctions and that will help minimise toll avoidance, going through villages and places like Charleville” is exactly the opposite to what he is talking about.

I disagree - I'll be going 'cross country' via Mitchelstown and over via Hospital - Not in any hurry but it's the better route of the existing 2 routes.

As for tolls - it will be multiple tolls - and all of this between the 2 larges cities outside of Dubland

There should be no tolls at all. This is basic infrastructure enjoyed toll free in every other western country.

Apart from the M7, the M3 and M4 are tolled where there are no significant bridges.

Is this a serious post?

For anyone planning a European trip...

https://www.tolls.eu/european-countries

... a friend was pulled over by Czech police for not having a vignette. When they explained that they hadn't realised it was needed (not true, they were chancing their arm), the cops told them to buy one at the next service area ... then followed them there to made sure they did. But, in fairness, the cops could have issued a fine, so a good result...

No, the M4 is as flat as it gets.

I guarantee this road won't be tolled in the end. Too divisive. It shouldn't be tolled. We have so much money coming in we have to stuff it in wealth funds.

Tolling is a money grab. Nothing more, nothing less. Look at the East Link in Dublin. A small bridge paid off 50 times over and the toll remains to screw as much money out of people as possible. It doesn't exist for any other reason.

Once the tolls go in they will never be removed in Ireland.

How is it divisive. Why shouldn't users pay to use it given how expensive it is. We have to pay for train tickets, much more in fact.

Eamon Ryan has delayed every road project that he could. With the Limer6Cork motorway he first of all was pushing the Easter option to like up with the Cork Dublin motorway. That was never a realistic runner to put a motorway through an area with a very low population density on a longer route compared the present design.

Then every other green add on had to be put on to it which has .ade the road extremely expensive.

The road will and should be tolled. I am not sure a distance used toll is a great idea it easier and cheaper to put a toll probably around Buttervent to catch⁹ through traffic mainly. It's a disgrace that the Dublin Waterford road is not tolled.

Yes tolls are a form of tax, that is not a reason for them not to exist.

As much as I dislike the GP tolls were there ever before them

I be surprised it's about 80 KM of motorway. It's not long enough to split. I say it another Green tactic to delay the project

The local councillor in question is a senior member of the same political party as the current Minister for Transport, and in any case planning has nothing to do with how the contract will be split up for tendering. Splitting an 80km project into two 40km stretches shouldn’t be a surprise, as there’s a history of keeping contracts in the “hundreds of millions” price-range to allow for more competitive tendering: not many companies would be willing to take on the whole €1billion job.

But setting “Buttevant” as the start-point of a partial build would leave one of the most dangerous section of the N20 (Boherash Cross to Buttevant) in place: the only potential tie-in point is about 3 km north of Buttevant where the new build joins the alignment of the old road.

But no Minister has much say on how projects are delivered anyway. Ministers do the politics bit: they guide the general policies of the department and make high-level decisions about how budgets are spent. They certainly do not get into the details of how projects are tendered - that’s the job of the permanent staff at the department; people who have the necessary training and the experience in planning and oversight of large infrastructure projects (plus, any minster who interferes in procurement risks being accused of corruption).

Based on previous road projects, I can almost guarantee that this work will be tendered as at least two projects - it may even be three. Ryan’s role is only to decide about which of these can start first, and how soon the others follow afterward.

What I’m saying, basically, is that anyone saying it was Eamon Ryan’s idea that the project is split into two parts is very very likely to be wrong. And while it might be his wish to postpone one of those parts - it also might be that he is forced to postpone part of the project against his will by budgetary constraints: he could be completely gung-ho to get his vision of an active-travel equipped motorway built, but there could simply be no money do it all at once.

The next Minister, assuming they’re not an idiot (sadly, not an impossible outcome), would also be taking advice from the professionals on this; maybe that minister will decide to do all parts together, maybe they’ll decide to do none of it at all, or maybe they’ll scrap the plan and request a redesign. But I bet you it’ll still be multiple projects.

There is also no economy of scale effect over such distances. Quarries supplying one end of the project aren't going to want to haul materials 60+km up the existing N20, that would negate any hunger they might have for supplying the nearer sections. The same labour and plant can't be working on both ends simultaneously either. Splitting it makes sense for everyone.

That assumes that there are significant quantities of stone excavated, which isn't necessarily the case. Also, extensive testing is required for any stone to be used in the road buildup (pyrite, etc.), can't just throw in any stone that happens to be there. Quarries will have a testing regime and quality control procedures already, establishing that for some random bit of stone excavated isn't worth the hassle unless you have a significant quantity.

What did I say that was wrong?

Significant quantities of usable stone can't be assumed. Given the route is through prime agricultural land, volumes of stone excavated are likely to be at the lower end of the scale.

As you say, cut/fill is considered at design stage. The initial route study area was huge which allowed scope to select a route with favourable ground conditions and requiring minimal cut/fill. The terrain along the route generally is quite flat.

What stone is there would have to be tested to determine what it can be used for. If the route doesn't have much stone, and the stone that is there is poor, then you won't yield much from within the site.

Several quarries would be supplying to the M20 regardless of it being one or several contracts. Haul distances alone would mean you'd need a huge fleet of trucks as the number of daily runs to far away parts would be low.

Cut and fill earthworks often don't involve any stone at all, its mostly soil. The recent Ballyvourney to Macroom required going through areas with a lot of rock but that project was an exception. The nature of this island means that soft ground is more likely to be an issue and large volumes of stone has to be imported.

There is a strict specification for stone in road buildup and this comes mostly from established quarries. Any stone excavated from within the site will generally be used for making up levels elsewhere, filling in localised soft spots or embankments.