Anti-M28 thread

marno21

This thread is to be used for all discussion as to why the M28 scheme should not be built.

gerogerigegege

marno21 wrote: »

This thread is to be used for all discussion as to why the M28 scheme should not be built.

very poor moderator. goes around accusing people of NIMBYism and then posts that NIMBYism should not be mentioned or discussed.
I then bring this up and my message is deleted. but as he/she messaged me, other people do it too, is his/her excuse.
is this some sort of joke moderator?

gerogerigegege

marno21 wrote: »

Where along the route do you live, is it between the South Ring Rd and Carrs Hill or between Carrs Hill and Ringaskiddy?

If the latter, the new route will be built further away from your house. The TII will also by law have to erect soundproof barriers between you and the road so you will hear very little. If you live along the section of the N28 that was built in 1995 between Carrs Hill and the N40 South Ring, then you will have the barriers AND you will have major traffic relief in your area by the upgrading of the substandard road network.

This is pure NIMBYism. They're not going building the road through your back garden, if they were your house would have been CPOd. The existing N28 is unsafe and a massive drain on the economy of Cork.

Also, it's your NIMBY-esqure plans being shot down. I'm not advocating assassination of the M28 Steering Group (yet).

marno21
MOD:

Right, this is enough.

From now on, this thread is to be used for ONLY discussion related to the PROGRESSION of the M28 Cork - Ringaskiddy motorway scheme, by those users of the forum who all agree on it's crucialness to the development of the economy of Cork.

All anti M28 discussion and it's related NIMBYism is to be kept to this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...#post101429361

gerogerigegege

again marno21. bit of a bully this mod

marno21 wrote: »

Spot on.

I haven't seen any reason for this meeting. There has been no further updates recently for these NIMBYs to discuss

Kevwoody

I think it's unfair of you to attack Marno 21, just because he is a mod doesn't mean he can't express an opinion.

The roads forum, for me anyway, is one of the most interesting on boards, and that is down to mainly the intelligent and informed updates which Marno provides.

As it happens, I keep an eye on the forum for work reasons also. You may recall a poster here mentioned that something hadn't being changed after a road had being re-lined. A few days after I read this, that certain issue was sorted on site ;-)

Anyway, the way I see it, if you stop this road being built along the current route, Europe is going to pull the plug on funding, because there is no feasible alternative route! So instead of getting an improved road complete with sound barriers, which will improve your quality of living, you will be left with the dangerous mess of a road which we currently have.

gerogerigegege

Kevwoody wrote: »

I think it's unfair of you to attack Marno 21, just because he is a mod doesn't mean he can't express an opinion.

The roads forum, for me anyway, is one of the most interesting on boards, and that is down to mainly the intelligent and informed updates which Marno provides.

As it happens, I keep an eye on the forum for work reasons also. You may recall a poster here mentioned that something hadn't being changed after a road had being re-lined. A few days after I read this, that certain issue was sorted on site ;-)

Anyway, the way I see it, if you stop this road being built along the current route, Europe is going to pull the plug on funding, because there is no feasible alternative route! So instead of getting an improved road complete with sound barriers, which will improve your quality of living, you will be left with the dangerous mess of a road which we currently have.

he is giving out about something he himself is involved in. trying to undermine others using the NIMBY phrase.
I have had several posts deleted for ridiculous reasons and warnings issued.
makes no odds to me anyways, boards is known for moron/jumped up mods.
it will end up damaging the site.

marno21

I have had a look through the posts on the M28 Steering Group's Facebook page.

According to the page, the scheme is wrong for three reasons:

Busy and dangerous roads: The N28 at present between Carrs Hill and the N40 is a single carraigeway with frequent on ramps and a lot of weaving, 2 lanes in one direction and 1 in the other with no central barrier. The new scheme will now have 4 lanes (2 in each direction), a central barrier meaning safe overtaking, and the removal of the on-ramp at Maryborough Hill in favour of an upgraded, safer, full movement interchange at Carrs Hill. The N28 from Carrs Hill to Carrigaline is a narrow, tight, bendy mess of a road with no turning lanes and traffic averaging 23k per day. IF ANYTHING THE M28 is REMOVING a dangerous road and making the N28 corridor MUCH SAFER.

Property devaluation: Instead of living in a congested area with half junctions and a poorly underpowered junction at Carrs Hill, where to complete certain movements motorists end up rat running through housing estates (Mount Oval), there will now be a full junction at Carrs Hill and an improved off ramp at Mount Oval, together with a new link road from Maryborough to the interchange. If anything, improved traffic flow means better living conditions. The majority of people would rather buy a house near a motorway (it's not as if you are fronting onto the motorway, and your house is well seperated from the motorway - this is a 2018 build with lots of conditions attached, not a 1970s build).

Noise pollution: The existing traffic isn't going to disappear if this scheme goes ahead, in fact now it can get by without massive jams and the upgraded road will have a quieter surface and likely new sound barriers. The new interchange at Carrs Hill will also hopefully keep more traffic on the motorway and stop (even a few) rat runs through Douglas/Rochestown/Mount Oval etc.

There's also an image about black lungs. If anything there will be LESS POLLUTION as traffic no longer has to spend time parked at the top of Carrs Hill in a jam. How many members of the "M28 Steering Group" so concerned about pollution smoke cigarettes?

gerogerigegege

marno21 wrote: »

I have had a look through the posts on the M28 Steering Group's Facebook page.

According to the page, the scheme is wrong for three reasons:

Busy and dangerous roads: The N28 at present between Carrs Hill and the N40 is a single carraigeway with frequent on ramps and a lot of weaving, 2 lanes in one direction and 1 in the other with no central barrier. The new scheme will now have 4 lanes (2 in each direction), a central barrier meaning safe overtaking, and the removal of the on-ramp at Maryborough Hill in favour of an upgraded, safer, full movement interchange at Carrs Hill. The N28 from Carrs Hill to Carrigaline is a narrow, tight, bendy mess of a road with no turning lanes and traffic averaging 23k per day. IF ANYTHING THE M28 is REMOVING a dangerous road and making the N28 corridor MUCH SAFER.

Property devaluation: Instead of living in a congested area with half junctions and a poorly underpowered junction at Carrs Hill, where to complete certain movements motorists end up rat running through housing estates (Mount Oval), there will now be a full junction at Carrs Hill and an improved off ramp at Mount Oval, together with a new link road from Maryborough to the interchange. If anything, improved traffic flow means better living conditions. The majority of people would rather buy a house near a motorway (it's not as if you are fronting onto the motorway, and your house is well seperated from the motorway - this is a 2018 build with lots of conditions attached, not a 1970s build).

Noise pollution: The existing traffic isn't going to disappear if this scheme goes ahead, in fact now it can get by without massive jams and the upgraded road will have a quieter surface and likely new sound barriers. The new interchange at Carrs Hill will also hopefully keep more traffic on the motorway and stop (even a few) rat runs through Douglas/Rochestown/Mount Oval etc.

There's also an image about black lungs. If anything there will be LESS POLLUTION as traffic no longer has to spend time parked at the top of Carrs Hill in a jam. How many members of the "M28 Steering Group" so concerned about pollution smoke cigarettes?

there will be massive numbers of articulated lorries etc. using that road.
with the roll on roll off system in the port the plan is one vehicle a minute.
the trees in the Mulcon valley will be destroyed thus noise levels, which are ALREADY above recommended levels, and the impact of exhaust fumes will be made worse.
all of this a few metres from 100s of homes.

gerogerigegege

marno21 wrote: »

I have had a look through the posts on the M28 Steering Group's Facebook page.

According to the page, the scheme is wrong for three reasons:

Busy and dangerous roads: The N28 at present between Carrs Hill and the N40 is a single carraigeway with frequent on ramps and a lot of weaving, 2 lanes in one direction and 1 in the other with no central barrier. The new scheme will now have 4 lanes (2 in each direction), a central barrier meaning safe overtaking, and the removal of the on-ramp at Maryborough Hill in favour of an upgraded, safer, full movement interchange at Carrs Hill. The N28 from Carrs Hill to Carrigaline is a narrow, tight, bendy mess of a road with no turning lanes and traffic averaging 23k per day. IF ANYTHING THE M28 is REMOVING a dangerous road and making the N28 corridor MUCH SAFER.

Property devaluation: Instead of living in a congested area with half junctions and a poorly underpowered junction at Carrs Hill, where to complete certain movements motorists end up rat running through housing estates (Mount Oval), there will now be a full junction at Carrs Hill and an improved off ramp at Mount Oval, together with a new link road from Maryborough to the interchange. If anything, improved traffic flow means better living conditions. The majority of people would rather buy a house near a motorway (it's not as if you are fronting onto the motorway, and your house is well seperated from the motorway - this is a 2018 build with lots of conditions attached, not a 1970s build).

Noise pollution: The existing traffic isn't going to disappear if this scheme goes ahead, in fact now it can get by without massive jams and the upgraded road will have a quieter surface and likely new sound barriers. The new interchange at Carrs Hill will also hopefully keep more traffic on the motorway and stop (even a few) rat runs through Douglas/Rochestown/Mount Oval etc.

There's also an image about black lungs. If anything there will be LESS POLLUTION as traffic no longer has to spend time parked at the top of Carrs Hill in a jam. How many members of the "M28 Steering Group" so concerned about pollution smoke cigarettes?

what has that to do with anything?

Middle Man

marno21 wrote: »

I have had a look through the posts on the M28 Steering Group's Facebook page.

According to the page, the scheme is wrong for three reasons:

Busy and dangerous roads: The N28 at present between Carrs Hill and the N40 is a single carraigeway with frequent on ramps and a lot of weaving, 2 lanes in one direction and 1 in the other with no central barrier. The new scheme will now have 4 lanes (2 in each direction), a central barrier meaning safe overtaking, and the removal of the on-ramp at Maryborough Hill in favour of an upgraded, safer, full movement interchange at Carrs Hill. The N28 from Carrs Hill to Carrigaline is a narrow, tight, bendy mess of a road with no turning lanes and traffic averaging 23k per day. IF ANYTHING THE M28 is REMOVING a dangerous road and making the N28 corridor MUCH SAFER.

Property devaluation: Instead of living in a congested area with half junctions and a poorly underpowered junction at Carrs Hill, where to complete certain movements motorists end up rat running through housing estates (Mount Oval), there will now be a full junction at Carrs Hill and an improved off ramp at Mount Oval, together with a new link road from Maryborough to the interchange. If anything, improved traffic flow means better living conditions. The majority of people would rather buy a house near a motorway (it's not as if you are fronting onto the motorway, and your house is well seperated from the motorway - this is a 2018 build with lots of conditions attached, not a 1970s build).

Noise pollution: The existing traffic isn't going to disappear if this scheme goes ahead, in fact now it can get by without massive jams and the upgraded road will have a quieter surface and likely new sound barriers. The new interchange at Carrs Hill will also hopefully keep more traffic on the motorway and stop (even a few) rat runs through Douglas/Rochestown/Mount Oval etc.

There's also an image about black lungs. If anything there will be LESS POLLUTION as traffic no longer has to spend time parked at the top of Carrs Hill in a jam. How many members of the "M28 Steering Group" so concerned about pollution smoke cigarettes?

+1

In addition...

IMO, property devaluation is not the state's problem - property values are purely speculative in nature and the entire property system in its current form is simply hard nosed business where any sympathy on the part of the state is surplus to requirements. The price of houses is a national disgrace where so many people trying to start independent lives/families are struggling to put a roof over their heads.

Also, this NIMBYism is only adding to the argument favouring the retention of property tax which in itself, probably helps to offset the high legal costs incurred as a result of providing public utilities/amenities. Those who live in a city need to understand that infrastructure has to be built - they may get used to it. Sure we in East Meath live with the roar of the M1 motorway, but it must go somewhere and in fact, I've no regrets concerning the road - in addition to the benefits of having motorway access, road deaths in the area has fallen dramatically.

pat ticket

How many members of the 'steering' committee use the N40 each and every day?

How many members of this committee expressed similar concerns about traffic/noise levels and impact on property prices when the N40 was constructed?

How many members of the committee moved into the area over the past 10+ years when it was publicly known the plans to upgrade the N28 to at least dual carriageway were in the public domain?

spacetweek

gerogerigegege wrote: »

very poor moderator. goes around accusing people of NIMBYism and then posts that NIMBYism should not be mentioned or discussed.

If you accuse someone of racism does that make you a racist?

marno21

My post above was just about the M28 Steering Group's negatives.

Let's not forget that on weekdays over 28k vehicles per day use this stretch of road:

AugustusMinimus

The M28 will destroy Douglas?

This is tinfoil hat stuff. Completely unsubstantiated fear mongering at its very worst. Pathetic.

Leonard Hofstadter

This 'steering group' is an absolute joke, fortunately there are only 89 people following it on facebook (as I write) and it is nothing more than complete hot air.

As others have noted, the M28 will be further away from some houses than the existing road, there will be sound barriers and obviously it will transform access between the city and Carrigaline, Crosshaven, Ringaskiddy. It makes me embarrassed to say I'm from Cork when I read these nonsense objections, these people want to hold the development of our city back for no good reason. The concerns, however genuine they may seem, are totally irrational and without logic when one looks at the truth of the matter.

The Port is being moved to Ringaskiddy whether we like it or not, so the traffic on the existing road is going to increase no matter what anyway, so it's going to be even more and more unsuitable. It's not very often that we get free EU money to build a substantial portion of a road, and with all the other spending pressures, we shouldn't be saying no thanks to a few hundred million of EU funding because of irrational and unfounded reasons.

Don't let a few NIMBYs hold the development of our city back and just get on with it really!

gerogerigegege

captainspeed wrote: »

This 'steering group' is an absolute joke, fortunately there are only 89 people following it on facebook (as I write) and it is nothing more than complete hot air.

As others have noted, the M28 will be further away from some houses than the existing road, there will be sound barriers and obviously it will transform access between the city and Carrigaline, Crosshaven, Ringaskiddy. It makes me embarrassed to say I'm from Cork when I read these nonsense objections, these people want to hold the development of our city back for no good reason. The concerns, however genuine they may seem, are totally irrational and without logic when one looks at the truth of the matter.

The Port is being moved to Ringaskiddy whether we like it or not, so the traffic on the existing road is going to increase no matter what anyway, so it's going to be even more and more unsuitable. It's not very often that we get free EU money to build a substantial portion of a road, and with all the other spending pressures, we shouldn't be saying no thanks to a few hundred million of EU funding because of irrational and unfounded reasons.

Don't let a few NIMBYs hold the development of our city back and just get on with it really!

what are you gonna do about it? people don't want the area they live in destroyed. There was 100's down yesterday in the Rochestown PH...the room was too small to handle the numbers wanting to see what's going on you'll have to accept that this will be resisted by 1000s.
progress is building hospitals, schools and homes, which we need as a matter of urgency. This is what should be their primary concern.
btw. theres no 'free eu money'..

and again. this NIMBY thing. that's not an insult if it's supposed to be. It's very childish and shows how badly rattled you and the 'moderator' on here are resorting to name calling.

gerogerigegege

marno21 wrote: »

My post above was just about the M28 Steering Group's negatives.

Let's not forget that on weekdays over 28k vehicles per day use this stretch of road:

invest in public transport.
more buses.
more efficiency.
less cars on the road.
less pollution and destruction.
everyone wins.

Cookiemunster

gerogerigegege wrote: »

invest in public transport.
more buses.
more efficiency.
less cars on the road.
less pollution and destruction.
everyone wins.

How is any of that going to change the fact that the current road won't be able to handle the future volume of HGVs?

gerogerigegege

Cookiemunster wrote: »

How is any of that going to change the fact that the current road won't be able to handle the future volume of HGVs?

there's plenty of over paid qualified people that will sort that out.
my concern is the impact on the area I and family and friends live in.

gerogerigegege

also.
can we change the name of this thread.
the moderator has shown a constant disregard for people that object the plans for the m28 and is biased.
something less in your face.
thanks.

Cookiemunster

gerogerigegege wrote: »

there's plenty of over paid qualified people that will sort that out.
my concern is the impact on the area I and family and friends live in.

In other words, you have no idea and can put no alternative forward.You're the one saying the this road shouldn't go where it's planned so the burden is on you not anyone else to come up with an alternative.

pat ticket

gerogerigegege wrote: »

invest in public transport.
more buses.
more efficiency.
less cars on the road.
less pollution and destruction.
everyone wins.

The Carrigaline bus service has received investment this year, more buses, increased frquency. however it remains notoriously unreliable due to traffic congestion. The M28 will help alleviate this when built (along with new roads planned in Carrigaline itself).

Btw, I take it you don't drive?

gerogerigegege

Cookiemunster wrote: »

In other words, you have no idea and can put no alternative forward.You're the one saying the this road shouldn't go where it's planned so the burden is on you not anyone else to come up with an alternative.

that's your worry not mine. theres no onus on me to do anything but resist the destruction of the area I live in.

Cookiemunster

gerogerigegege wrote: »

that's your worry not mine. theres no onus on me to do anything but resist the destruction of the area I live in.

Quite the contrary. Your group wants the road moved elsewhere. To have any hope of changing the route an alternative will be needed. The experts have decided that the best route that causes the least disruption is the current planned route. You have to prove that the experts are incorrect and that they is a better alternative if you want to win your case.

Middle Man

gerogerigegege wrote: »

invest in public transport.
more buses.
more efficiency.
less cars on the road.
less pollution and destruction.
everyone wins.

Same old mantra - heard it all before - in the 1990's!

Ever heard of integrated transport planning???

gerogerigegege

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Quite the contrary. Your group wants the road moved elsewhere. To have any hope of changing the route an alternative will be needed. The experts have decided that the best route that causes the least disruption is the current planned route. You have to prove that the experts are incorrect and that they is a better alternative if you want to win your case.

Like I said. There's no onus on me to find an alternative route. That's not my group. Its a place to fond information
Work from there or maybe contact the group yourself if you feel the need to do so

Just to add. Having a motorway a few metres from your home.
You wouldn't mind? Open to all.
Thanks:)

gerogerigegege

Middle Man wrote: »

Same old mantra - heard it all before - in the 1990's!

Ever heard of integrated transport planning???

No, please share your knowledge.
Thanks

Middle Man

gerogerigegege wrote: »

that's your worry not mine. theres no onus on me to do anything but resist the destruction of the area I live in.

Oh yeah - "I don't care where you put it but I don't want it here!" - heard it all before across the country during the 1980's and 1990's!

...it kind of sounds like a broken record at this stage!

In short...

Not
In
My
Back
Yard

Middle Man

gerogerigegege wrote: »

No, please share your knowledge.
Thanks

Integrated Transport Planning is the practice of using the right tools for the right jobs. Roads, Railways and Footpaths all have part to play in creating an effective transport solution - that includes buses and trams.

L1011

gerogerigegege wrote: »

Like I said. There's no onus on me to find an alternative route. That's not my group. Its a place to fond information
Work from there or maybe contact the group yourself if you feel the need to do so

So you're opposed for selfish reasons and have no alternative. Fantastic position. Have you considered joining the PBP-AAA?

Cookiemunster

gerogerigegege wrote: »

Like I said. There's no onus on me to find an alternative route. That's not my group. Its a place to fond information
Work from there or maybe contact the group yourself if you feel the need to do so

And that's why when the scheme goes to planning, your complaints will be thrown out without a second thought.

Why would I look for an alternative when I'm not objecting to the scheme? Your logic is very very flawed.