Anti-M28 thread

Leonard Hofstadter

Here is an article in the Echo about this recent meeting.

http://www.eveningecho.ie/cork-news/video-public-meeting-hears-concerns-m28/2554645/

The good news is that they have come up with an alternative routing, however it is completely impractical and doesn't do what this road will do. Admittedly what they are proposing is needed in the long run and it does deserve some consideration, but after the M28 is done, not before.

What they want is for there to be a link road between Shannon Park, the Airport and Bishopstown.

I think we'd all agree that there most certainly does need to be a proper link between these three locations, indeed it has often been mentioned in this forum about how the N40 will be completely overwhelmed in places once the M28 is opened, but a high quality link/relief road is most certainly is NOT an alternative to the M28. It's a link road, and it's badly needed, but this long-winded routing will be much longer for goods and services travelling from Dublin and along the Waterford/Rosslare corridor, not to mention the city centre, and the whole point of motorways is that they are quick and efficient - part and parcel of that obviously is using a direct routing and reducing the distance needed to be travelled. This nonsense ultimately shows why, despite the worrying increase in popularity right around the world of ignoring facts and what the experts have to say, they actually do know what they are doing and they are better than the rest of us at coming up with ideas (that's why they are experts after all).

One other thing that has been completely ignored in relation to the noise concerns: the M28 will only have a speed limit of 100 km/h as far as I know rather than the more usual 120 km/h despite its motorway status (something to do with noise I think), so that's another argument against this road out the window.

FA Hayek

gerogerigegege wrote: »

what's is your issue with OAP's? have they no right to voice concern?
shocking. can you post or pm me the details please? otherwise withdraw your serious accusation.
I await with interest

Nothing wrong with OAP's, hope to be one myself one day. However, they seem to have a lot of time on their hands so can divert attention to this stupid cause. They generally as well do not want change so are quite prepared to stifle progress at the expense of the next generation.

FA Hayek

Hear back from the meeting the people who wanted to speak out in favour were denied and threatened by the grey mob.

AugustusMinimus

gerogerigegege Still hasn't told us how this road will destroy Douglas, Rochestown and Grange and cause traffic chaos as per their earlier posters.

On the contrary, it will hugely alleviate congestion, especially in Douglas.

prunudo

FA Hayek wrote: »

Nothing wrong with OAP's, hope to be one myself one day. However, they seem to have a lot of time on their hands so can divert attention to this stupid cause. They generally as well do not want change so are quite prepared to stifle progress at the expense of the next generation.

Just look what the older vote did in UK with Brexit.

Baldilocks

The M50 handles ~160,000 vehicles per day. There are housing estates that are very close to it (similar distances from the road to those in the Mulcon valley), and there are no issues there. Nobody is actively campaigning for its' removal!
Granted it has 3 lanes in each direction, and not two, but if we take out the extra two lanes, there's no reason that upto 100,000 vehicles per day could not be accommodated.
This M28 project was costed on the route proposed, other options would have been investigated and ruled out for a variety of reasons, though cost would have been the predominant factor. The 'Steering groups' derisible suggestion of going via the airport would add considerable distance, and thus considerable
cost. Secondly, more private land would be required to be purchased, further adding to the cost. Are the steering group happy to pay for the extra distance? Will they give back their pension increase or continue to pay USC at this years rates?

FA Hayek

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

gerogerigegege Still hasn't told us how this road will destroy Douglas, Rochestown and Grange and cause traffic chaos as per their earlier posters.

On the contrary, it will hugely alleviate congestion, especially in Douglas.

When I think of destroy I think of Allepo in Syria or Moseul in Iraq. War torn regions destroyed by bombs.

Upgrading the N28 from a dual and single carriage way to motorway standard is not destroying Douglas, Rochestown or Maryborough.

People need to cop on with their use of language and use facts reason and logic to win an argument. Not random populist hearsay.

AugustusMinimus

FA Hayek wrote: »

When I think of destroy I think of Allepo in Syria or Moseul in Iraq. War torn regions destroyed by bombs.

Upgrading the N28 from a dual and single carriage way to motorway standard is not destroying Douglas, Rochestown or Maryborough.

People need to cop on with their use of language and use facts reason and logic to win an argument. Not random populist hearsay.

The new Carr's Hill interchange along with the proposed Bridge over the Ballybrack Stream will link both Grange and Donnybrook to the M28 taking a huge chunk of traffic out of Douglas and Rochestown.

Carawaystick

Baldilocks wrote: »

The M50 handles ~160,000 vehicles per day. There are housing estates that are very close to it (similar distances from the road to those in the Mulcon valley), and there are no issues there. Nobody is actively campaigning for its' removal!
Granted it has 3 lanes in each direction, and not two, but if we take out the extra two lanes, there's no reason that upto 100,000 vehicles per day could not be accommodated.

There's 4 lanes each way on the sections of the M50 with housing backing onto it.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3466797,-6.3863672,3a,75y,94.88h,88.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1smomK1OrzLPflulMm2O3q7w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DmomK1OrzLPflulMm2O3q7w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D126.58716%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Nuf

That's an absolute disgrace, those poor people.. . . . or are you perhaps suggesting that they are delighted that thousands of vehicles speed past daily, oblivious?

Baldilocks

I'm pointing out that they have been able to get on with their lives and no one has dropped dead (from the noise/fumes or god forbid 'property price impact') Contrary to the 'horse-feathers' being liberally spouted by the 'M28 steering group', who are likening the expansion of the road to armageddon.

It is worth noting that there are noise barriers along the M50.

gerogerigegege

Baldilocks wrote: »

I'm pointing out that they have been able to get on with their lives and no one has dropped dead (from the noise/fumes or god forbid 'property price impact') Contrary to the 'horse-feathers' being liberally spouted by the 'M28 steering group', who are likening the expansion of the road to armageddon.

It is worth noting that there are noise barriers along the M50.

Give a list of the issues raised which are being 'spouted' you feel are 'horse feathers'

Reassure me that this won't impact my life or home negatively. Open to anyone.
Thanks guys
BTW. Please use figures from the dept of the environment... EPA...etc

marno21

gerogerigegege wrote: »

Give a list of the issues raised which are being 'spouted' you feel are 'horse feathers'

Reassure me that this won't impact my life or home negatively. Open to anyone.
Thanks guys
BTW. Please use figures from the dept of the environment... EPA...etc

You are the only one here who was at this M28 meeting.

Why don't you list the issues you have, and we will then debunk them

I wasn't in the RPH on Saturday so I don't know what was discussed.

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

You are the only one here who was at this M28 meeting.

Why don't you list the issues you have, and we will then debunk them

I wasn't in the RPH on Saturday so I don't know what was discussed.

It's worth pointing out that the poster you're replying to doesn't seem to want to reply to reasonable questions.
It's just a constant tirade of "you must prove ..... for me".

At this point the burden of proof is on them, as I see it.

Proof that Douglas will be destroyed. Proof that Rochestown will be destroyed. Proof that noise levels will increase. Proof that pollution will increase. Proof that danger levels will increase. Proof that an alternative route is viable.

AugustusMinimus

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

It's worth pointing out that the poster you're replying to doesn't seem to want to reply to reasonable questions.
It's just a constant tirade of "you must prove ..... for me".

At this point the burden of proof is on them, as I see it.

Proof that Douglas will be destroyed. Proof that Rochestown will be destroyed. Proof that noise levels will increase. Proof that pollution will increase. Proof that danger levels will increase. Proof that an alternative route is viable.

It's like the plot from a 1970s Disaster B movie. Godzilla will run amuck in downtown Douglas.

gerogerigegege

marno21 wrote: »

You are the only one here who was at this M28 meeting.

Why don't you list the issues you have, and we will then debunk them

I wasn't in the RPH on Saturday so I don't know what was discussed.

Have you dug out the figures to prove your recent comments on emmisions, noise, old people?
That was a presentation on Saturday no one spoke to the audience while o was there.
I'm not a member of the group. Posted all this before

Nuf

marno21 wrote: »

You are the only one here who was at this M28 meeting.
.

I was there. I went to inform myself, as did many hundreds of others. It wasn't a meeting as such. It was actually a well produced display of the proposed road "improvement" showing the before and after scenarios, as well as maps proposing the alternative route.

My fear with the proposed development is that the TII will not deal fairly or appropriately with local issues re noise and visual intrusion (as I eagerly await the EIS.)
I already live adjacent to the road so am well aware of noise but I am also well aware that the TII does not protect people despite what posters think.

Baldilocks wrote: »

It is worth noting that there are noise barriers along the M50.

Your noise barrier image illustrates my point. The main stipulation for an effective barrier is that it should break the line of sight between the source and the receiver. Your example perfectly shows that the TII does not even conform to its own guidelines!!!
You can see examples all over the country where there are massive barriers protecting some properties while not others. Why do you think this is the case?

There is a process to be gone through with any new development but posters here seem to feel that people adjacent don't have any right to engage with this process, that they should take all that is written in reports as gospel.
Ok, here's an example of why I am so sceptical . . . . .

As part of the EIS for Port of Cork's move to Ringaskiddy, MVA Consultancy produced projected traffic flow studies. Their conclusions include these little gems . . .
"The proposed development will not give rise to significant levels of additional traffic on the existing road network; "
" The levels of additional traffic that will result from this development can be accommodated within the capacity of the existing road network;"
Comments and rants please?
If you accept this, there is little need for anything but a little improvement on the N28. If you don't accept it then ABP's decision was based on inaccurate information.

SOURCE: http://www.ringaskiddyportredevelopment.ie/index.cfm/page/vol_iiib_traffic_and_transport?twfId=249&download=true.
Conclusions and recommendations

hans aus dtschl

Nuf wrote: »

I was there. I went to inform myself, as did many hundreds of others. It wasn't a meeting as such. It was actually a well produced display of the proposed road "improvement" showing the before and after scenarios, as well as maps proposing the alternative route.

My fear with the proposed development is that the TII will not deal fairly or appropriately with local issues re noise and visual intrusion (as I eagerly await the EIS.)
I already live adjacent to the road so am well aware of noise but I am also well aware that the TII does not protect people despite what posters think.


Your noise barrier image illustrates my point. The main stipulation for an effective barrier is that it should break the line of sight between the source and the receiver. Your example perfectly shows that the TII does not even conform to its own guidelines!!!
You can see examples all over the country where there are massive barriers protecting some properties while not others. Why do you think this is the case?

There is a process to be gone through with any new development but posters here seem to feel that people adjacent don't have any right to engage with this process, that they should take all that is written in reports as gospel.
Ok, here's an example of why I am so sceptical . . . . .

As part of the EIS for Port of Cork's move to Ringaskiddy, MVA Consultancy produced projected traffic flow studies. Their conclusions include these little gems . . .
"The proposed development will not give rise to significant levels of additional traffic on the existing road network; "
" The levels of additional traffic that will result from this development can be accommodated within the capacity of the existing road network;"
Comments and rants please?
If you accept this, there is little need for anything but a little improvement on the N28. If you don't accept it then ABP's decision was based on inaccurate information.

SOURCE: http://www.ringaskiddyportredevelopment.ie/index.cfm/page/vol_iiib_traffic_and_transport?twfId=249&download=true.
Conclusions and recommendations

The existing road needs to be upgraded, Nuff.
Nothing to do with future traffic predictions, or future developments. It's currently inadequate for the traffic that's passing.

I suspect with regards traffic, port traffic is already on this road (coming from Ringaskiddy and Kilnagleary) and that this will be removed, but traffic from Little Island will be added.
This road is not being built for the port, but the port will be delayed if the road does not happen. The road itself is not to facilitate the port, it's to facilitate the current traffic levels, otherwise it wouldn't be economically viable.

Your concerns regarding noise are valid, but I don't think that's reason enough to stop the road development: I'd argue that on the contrary, it's cause for road development and that the design of the road itself is the issue you'd like to address most?

gerogerigegege

FA Hayek wrote: »

From what I hear on the ground, the people behind the anti-M28 group are a bunch of jumped up busy bodies, most of them OAP's with too much time on their hands, who are trying to bully others to supporting their cause. There has been reports of intimidation and under handed tactics in trying to stop this route from going ahead. They seem to have borrowed a lot from those loonies in the AAA/PBP.

Of course, they will deny this. But this upgrade will serve the area very well when it goes ahead.

Hi.
Still waiting proof of 'intimidation' by old people over 24 hours I'm waiting..
Were the gardai alerted about this intimidation or are you telling porkies?

gerogerigegege

marno21 wrote: »

You are the only one here who was at this M28 meeting.

Why don't you list the issues you have, and we will then debunk them

I wasn't in the RPH on Saturday so I don't know what was discussed.

No figures so?
You're making up stuff.
Thanks

AugustusMinimus

gerogerigegege wrote: »

Hi.
Still waiting proof of 'intimidation' by old people over 24 hours I'm waiting..
Were the gardai alerted about this intimidation or are you telling porkies?

And I'm still waiting on an explanation of how Douglas, Rochestown and Grange will be destroyed from you.

AugustusMinimus

gerogerigegege wrote: »

No figures. You're making up stuff.
Thanks

You're the one providing the outrageous conjecture with no back up whatsoever. The onus is on you to prove your assertions not for others to have to prove you wrong.

gerogerigegege

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

You're the one providing the outrageous conjecture with no back up whatsoever. The onus is on you to prove your assertions not for others to have to prove you wrong.

You don't seem to be following the thread.
No wonder you're confused. You were asked questions yesterday..do keep up. My time is precious.
I've no time for spoofers and time wasters

AugustusMinimus

gerogerigegege wrote: »

You don't seem to be following the thread.
No wonder you're confused. You were asked questions yesterday..do keep up. My time is precious.
I've no time for spoofers and time wasters

You still haven't answered me, nor will you as you have no answers.

L1011

gerogerigegege wrote: »

No figures so?
You're making up stuff.
Thanks

You are the one making the extraordinary claims here. There's an onus on you to provide some proof of that. Otherwise you could easily be, oh, a time waster or spoofer maybe.

marno21

MOD:

Gerogerigegege:

Myself, AugustusMinimus and others are pro M28. We don't express any anti M28 agenda so you need to tell us why we should, and not just general "it will destroy Douglas"

If you can't provide a reason to keep the anti M28 discussion going I will lock this thread.

gerogerigegege

marno21 wrote: »

MOD:

Gerogerigegege:

Myself, AugustusMinimus and others are pro M28. We don't express any anti M28 agenda so you need to tell us why we should, and not just general "it will destroy Douglas"

If you can't provide a reason to keep the anti M28 discussion going I will lock this thread.

Makes no odds to me what you do. You should lock itt for your own sake. You've made a show of yourself so many times. Toodles guys

Sam Russell

MOD:

Can we get a bit of decorum in this thread. Posters must not attack other posters. This thread has become a succession of unsubstantiated claims of doom and destruction from one side and cries of 'rubbish - rubbish' from the other.

Can we abide by the charter in our posts and refrain from nastiness.

Thank you.

Nuf

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

The existing road needs to be upgraded, Nuff.
Nothing to do with future traffic predictions, or future developments.

I agree, the present road is the pits from Carr's Hill to Shannonpark and beyond. This has needed addressing for years

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

This road is not being built for the port,

I'll have to disagree with this point though. The only reason a motorway is being proposed is because of the EU's TEN-T - Connecting Europe initiative where Cork port is said to lie on the North Sea-Mediterranean Core Network Corridor, the Irish section connecting Belfast – Dublin – Cork at high speeds. Absolutely ludicrous isn't it? This is the reason for closing ramps and building new access roads, to comply with a motorway designation.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Your concerns regarding noise are valid, but I don't think that's reason enough to stop the road development: I'd argue that on the contrary, it's cause for road development and that the design of the road itself is the issue you'd like to address most?

Again I agree with this analysis and that is why I am awaiting the EIS. IF this shows good design and IF there are adequate noise barriers and IF etc etc . . .. . . but then again, who believes EISs as my last post showed.

Kevwoody

^^^^ Finally a decent bit of debate rather than "toodles guys" responses and doom and gloom.