Should the M28 Cork-Ringaskiddy motorway be built? [project approved]

marno21

In the original M28 thread, for discussion of the scheme's progression, there was a number of posts last Autumn about alternative routing of the motorway and how it would affect Douglas and Ringaskiddy. These posts then filled the thread and it became impossible to discuss the scheme's progression coherently, so I started a new thread, which had to be closed for several reasons.

I am aware that because the original thread was closed, there is currently nowhere to discuss the M28 alternatives and merits, so this thread is being created, in the interest of balance. However, this thread will continue under certain conditions:

1. Posters on this thread are expected to be civil and not engage in any abusive behaviour towards other users, mods or any member of the public/organisations involved with the M28.

2. Any claims made need to be backed up and claims of correspondance etc from various organisations posted without proof will be deleted. I have no problem with an anti-M28 member saying something but posts can't be left up if they could potentially cause trouble for the site.

3. Any discussion/updates of the actual M28 scheme in progress are to be posted on the M28 thread. This thread is only for discussion of alternative routes and whether the scheme will go ahead at all. If there is a scheme update it belongs in the other thread.

I will happily allow this discussion to take place but if the thread goes out of control like the last one, this thread will also be locked. I am trying to suit both sides as much as possible here but posters also need to play ball.

marno21

Middle Man

Looking at the traffic volumes and the end destination amid EU requirements for strategic access, I think the case is closed. However, public transport solutions must also be pursued. The proposed M28 will have a capacity of around 44k so as a short term solution, it's right to build this road. Medium term solutions must be rail/BRT based (perhaps light rail or BRT to Carrigaline via Douglas for example) and if such prove successful in creating a modal shift, the M28 given its capacity can be recycled as a long term solution.

Isambard

Whilst I agree the route needs improvement, does it need to be a motorway?

marno21

Isambard wrote: »

Whilst I agree the route needs improvement, does it need to be a motorway?

29000 vehicles at Carrs Hill says yes.

Also, being built with TEN-T European funding, it has to be motorway to quality for said funding

Isambard

marno21 wrote: »

29000 vehicles at Carrs Hill says yes.

Also, being built with TEN-T European funding, it has to be motorway to quality for said funding

that doesn't make a case for a Motorway to Ringaskiddy though. Carrs Hill is pretty close to the city and carrying all the local traffic. What's the volume beyond Carrigaline? I doubt this justifies a motorway.

marno21

Isambard wrote: »

that doesn't make a case for a Motorway to Ringaskiddy though. Carrs Hill is pretty close to the city and carrying all the local traffic. What's the volume beyond Carrigaline? I doubt this justifies a motorway.

There is only one counter on the N28 and thats at Carrs Hill so I can't provide you with that information.

However, we can't make a case for not building the M28 as motorway based on now. GE Healthcare are bringing 500 new jobs to Ringaskiddy and don't forget, the port is relocating to Ringaskiddy so there will be a lot of extra HGV traffic on the way. Plus there are plenty of rat runs to avoid Shannonpark currently taking traffic off the N28 that will hopefully be left alone after the motorway opens.

Also, point 2 about the EU funding requiring motorway is inescapable. It has to be motorway or nothing to qualify.

Finally, Shannonpark to Ringaskiddy is about 5km. It's not a massive ask, only 5km.

Isambard

I'd say it may be nothing then.

marno21

Isambard wrote: »

I'd say it may be nothing then.

As it stands the M28 scheme is being sent to ABP for planning permission in the next month or two.

We'll see if it gets through.

Isambard

so why start this thread then? sounds like you think it's a fait accompli

marno21

Isambard wrote: »

so why start this thread then? sounds like you think it's a fait accompli

Because it has been requested that there a place for both sides of the M28 or not argument to be discussed.

I'm in favour of the motorway, massively so, but this is a place for those who disagree to air their views.

AugustusMinimus

Not building a motorway for part of this scheme would be ludicrous beyond belief. The traffic to Ringaskiddy gets worse every year with more and more industry moving there.

Isambard

but there are greater priorities and politically it would be hard to make the case for a isolated short motorway.

If non motorway is acceptable for the South Ring, then why motorway for the N28?

Cookiemunster

Isambard wrote: »

but there are greater priorities and politically it would be hard to make the case for a isolated short motorway.

If non motorway is acceptable for the South Ring, then why motorway for the N28?

This is going to ABP. It's gone past politics. And it's a Ten-T project so it's being EU finded and therefore needs to be a motorway. And a motorway is physically no different to a HQDC. What part of this are you failing to understand?

Isambard

the need for a thread maybe?

marno21

Isambard wrote: »

but there are greater priorities

What greater priorities?

Isambard wrote: »

politically it would be hard to make the case for a isolated short motorway.

Isolated short motorway? Motorway between a major port (classified by the EU as a Tier 1 port), several major industrial complexes employing thousands of people and a major town with a population of 15,000. Hardly isolated. Short? Doesn't really matter.

Isambard wrote: »

If non motorway is acceptable for the South Ring, then why motorway for the N28?

Motorway requirement applies to new builds only. When the last section of the South Ring opened in 1999 these rules didn't apply. The relevant section of the South Ring (from Bloomfield to the M8) is to motorway standards and could be redesignated (after the Dunkettle Interchange opens).

Isambard wrote: »

the need for a thread maybe?

I was asked to open a thread. There is now a place to discuss the topic for those who want to.

mikeym

The steering group have a meeting on the 10th of May to discuss the motorway.

How does it exactly affect Douglas?

I can understand those who live next to the Bloomfield Interchange and Mount Oval but this has nothing to do with Douglas.

marno21

mikeym wrote: »

The steering group have a meeting on the 10th of May to discuss the motorway.

How does it exactly affect Douglas?

I can understand those who live next to the Bloomfield Interchange and Mount Oval but this has nothing to do with Douglas.

Scaremongering, plain and simple.

"Traffic gridlock". The whole point of the M28 (which it will do quite effectively) is to relieve congestion.

Air pollution from idling cars removed because they're not at a standstill on the Sli Carrigdhoun anymore.

But then again there's no talking to some people.

AugustusMinimus

The new Carr's Hill interchange is part of a greater plan to drastically improve access between the N40/M28 and Douglas, Rochestown, Grange and Donnybrook.

It will take huge volumes of traffic out of Douglas West for instance as Grange and Donnybrook will have direct access to the M28. Those posters are nothing but scaremongering.

Isambard

marno21 wrote: »

What greater priorities?



Isolated short motorway? Motorway between a major port (classified by the EU as a Tier 1 port), several major industrial complexes employing thousands of people and a major town with a population of 15,000. Hardly isolated. Short? Doesn't really matter.



Motorway requirement applies to new builds only. When the last section of the South Ring opened in 1999 these rules didn't apply. The relevant section of the South Ring (from Bloomfield to the M8) is to motorway standards and could be redesignated (after the Dunkettle Interchange opens).



I was asked to open a thread. There is now a place to discuss the topic for those who want to.

but you don't want to discuss it, you want to shout down any opposition to push your favourite scheme.

Greater priorities there are in abundance. The North Ring for one.

I wouldn't want a motorway through my leafy suburb, but that's scare-mongering of course.

Cookiemunster

Isambard wrote: »

but you don't want to discuss it, you want to shout down any opposition to push your favourite scheme.

Greater priorities there are in abundance. The North Ring for one.

I wouldn't want a motorway through my leafy suburb, but that's scare-mongering of course.

The EU won't pay for the NRR. They will pay for the M28. This is not taking funds from other projects. It's not that difficult to understand.

AugustusMinimus

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Isambard wrote: »

but you don't want to discuss it, you want to shout down any opposition to push your favourite scheme.

Greater priorities there are in abundance. The North Ring for one.

I wouldn't want a motorway through my leafy suburb, but that's scare-mongering of course.

The EU won't pay for the NRR. They will pay for the M28. This is not taking funds from other projects. It's not that difficult to understand.

I'm lost by this line of argument.

marno21

Isambard wrote: »

but you don't want to discuss it, you want to shout down any opposition to push your favourite scheme.

I am trying to discuss it but I can't see any valid arguments against it.

Isambard wrote: »

Greater priorities there are in abundance. The North Ring for one.

The North Ring is at least 10 years away from construction would it be reactivated today so the M28 would likely be finished when the North Ring is ready to go.

Isambard wrote: »

I wouldn't want a motorway through my leafy suburb, but that's scare-mongering of course.

I would if it meant relief from congestion on overcrowded roads and improved access to the network.

The main issue I have is the fact that the M28 Steering Group are making a lot of wild statements without proof, in many cases untrue statements.

Disaster for Douglas, Rochestown and Maryborough Hill? How? This will relieve traffic in Douglas, and provide improved access and traffic relief for the latter two.

Traffic gridlock a certainty? Again, how does a motorway/capacity upgrade cause gridlock? It RELIEVES gridlock on the N28 at Carrs Hill and Shannonpark

Noise and pollution confirmed? By who?

marno21

The M28 Steering Group now has a video on it describing the damage the proposed road will do to the Douglas area: https://www.facebook.com/175111606272101/videos/287279715055289/

What they don't seem to realise is that an alternative route via the Airport won't be used and all the traffic will continue to use the existing N28, without the enhancements to the road network in Maryborough and Rochestown, along with the benefits for Carrigaline, Shanbally and Ringaskiddy.

I won't be debating further on this because I have already made all the points necessary several times. I'll let this in the capable hands of TII & the other organisations.

Isambard

Cookiemunster wrote: »

This is going to ABP. It's gone past politics. And it's a Ten-T project so it's being EU finded and therefore needs to be a motorway. And a motorway is physically no different to a HQDC. What part of this are you failing to understand?

There is a quite large difference and that is with a Motorway you have to provide an alternative route, for non-motorway traffic, so obviously the cost is quite a lot higher. I guess that's the bit I'm failing to understand?

Isambard

marno21 wrote: »

I am trying to discuss it but I can't see any valid arguments against it.



The North Ring is at least 10 years away from construction would it be reactivated today so the M28 would likely be finished when the North Ring is ready to go.



I would if it meant relief from congestion on overcrowded roads and improved access to the network.

The main issue I have is the fact that the M28 Steering Group are making a lot of wild statements without proof, in many cases untrue statements.

Disaster for Douglas, Rochestown and Maryborough Hill? How? This will relieve traffic in Douglas, and provide improved access and traffic relief for the latter two.

Traffic gridlock a certainty? Again, how does a motorway/capacity upgrade cause gridlock? It RELIEVES gridlock on the N28 at Carrs Hill and Shannonpark

Noise and pollution confirmed? By who?

On another thread not a million miles away, it has been consistently claimed that a new motorway will add to congestion. It can't be "fact" on one motorway into Cork and not on another.

Kevwoody

Isambard wrote: »

On another thread not a million miles away, it has been consistently claimed that a new motorway will add to congestion. It can't be "fact" on one motorway into Cork and not on another.

What other motorway are you talking about?

AugustusMinimus

Isambard wrote: »

marno21 wrote: »

I am trying to discuss it but I can't see any valid arguments against it.



The North Ring is at least 10 years away from construction would it be reactivated today so the M28 would likely be finished when the North Ring is ready to go.



I would if it meant relief from congestion on overcrowded roads and improved access to the network.

The main issue I have is the fact that the M28 Steering Group are making a lot of wild statements without proof, in many cases untrue statements.

Disaster for Douglas, Rochestown and Maryborough Hill? How? This will relieve traffic in Douglas, and provide improved access and traffic relief for the latter two.

Traffic gridlock a certainty? Again, how does a motorway/capacity upgrade cause gridlock? It RELIEVES gridlock on the N28 at Carrs Hill and Shannonpark

Noise and pollution confirmed? By who?

On another thread not a million miles away, it has been consistently claimed that a new motorway will add to congestion. It can't be "fact" on one motorway into Cork and not on another.

Which one?

AugustusMinimus

Isambard wrote: »

Cookiemunster wrote: »

This is going to ABP. It's gone past politics. And it's a Ten-T project so it's being EU finded and therefore needs to be a motorway. And a motorway is physically no different to a HQDC. What part of this are you failing to understand?

There is a quite large difference and that is with a Motorway you have to provide an alternative route, for non-motorway traffic, so obviously the cost is quite a lot higher. I guess that's the bit I'm failing to understand?

There will be an alternative route in the old road. Motorway is not starting until Carr's Hill Interchange.

How will the cost be higher. If this scheme was HQDC the same route would be chosen and it would cost the same.

marno21

Evening Echo article about the planned destruction of the Mulcon Valley:

http://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Opposition-grows-among-residents-to-building-of-new-Ringaskiddy-motorway-663816e9-9697-4a7b-9d44-5bf64783b165-ds

Isambard

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

There will be an alternative route in the old road. Motorway is not starting until Carr's Hill Interchange.

How will the cost be higher. If this scheme was HQDC the same route would be chosen and it would cost the same.

I don't think that's a given is it? The difference between a HQDC and Motorway is the linking roads needed to the alternative route if a Motorway is chosen.

Looking at the plans for the M20 north of Rathduff, a parallel alternative route was to be built alongside it, which would be completely unnecessary if the new road was HQDC rather than Motorway. This was also the case at Watergrasshill and is no doubt not a rarity.

With a HQDC there is always the possibility of taking out of use certain sections of the original route by diverting traffic on to a section of the new, you can't do that with a Motorway.

In short I don't think the cost would necessarily be the same.

AugustusMinimus

Isambard wrote: »

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

There will be an alternative route in the old road. Motorway is not starting until Carr's Hill Interchange.

How will the cost be higher. If this scheme was HQDC the same route would be chosen and it would cost the same.

I don't think that's a given is it? The difference between a HQDC and Motorway is the linking roads needed to the alternative route if a Motorway is chosen.

In addition, this would necessitate the Old Carrigsline Road finishing as a junction to the N28. Do you think this would be fair on both pedestrians and cyclists?

Looking at the plans for the M20 north of Rathduff, a parallel alternative route was to be built alongside it, which would be completely unnecessary if the new road was HQDC rather than Motorway. This was also the case at Watergrasshill and is no doubt not a rarity.

With a HQDC there is always the possibility of taking out of use certain sections of the original route by diverting traffic on to a section of the new, you can't do that with a Motorway.

In short I don't think the cost would necessarily be the same.

Are you saying this scheme should involve an online build? Impossible with HQDC unless you get rid of all the houses on the existing road and block access from numerous local roads. Wouldn't make any sense.

Same question on both the proposed M20 and M8. The online build section of the M20 is a new section built in the early 90s that doesn't have any of these issues.

Isambard

no I'm saying the cost isn't necessarily the same for a HQDC and a Motorway

As regards the M20 as I stated the section North of Rathduff was to include a new parallel road alongside and thus is more expensive than if just a HQDC was built. The section you talk of would need a new alternative route as the original road is not fit for purpose and some way from the current route.

Cookiemunster

Isambard wrote: »

no I'm saying the cost isn't necessarily the same for a HQDC and a Motorway

As regards the M20 as I stated the section North of Rathduff was to include a new parallel road alongside and thus is more expensive than if just a HQDC was built. The section you talk of would need a new alternative route as the original road is not fit for purpose and some way from the current route.

Actually only the Croom bypass, which was to be upgraded to motorway, needed an alternative route. The current N20 was to be the alternative route for the rest of the scheme.

Isambard

how will you do that on the section mentioned where it will be online?

boardsuser1

Kevwoody wrote: »

What other motorway are you talking about?

The long awaited M20 most likely.

Isambard

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Actually only the Croom bypass, which was to be upgraded to motorway, needed an alternative route. The current N20 was to be the alternative route for the rest of the scheme.

the entire motorway from Blarney to halfway from Rathduff to Mallow was planned to be on line and a new "N20" will be built alongside. The plans were posted the other day on the N20 thread.

Vanquished

Isambard wrote: »

the entire motorway from Blarney to halfway from Rathduff to Mallow was planned to be on line and a new "N20" will be built alongside. The plans were posted the other day on the N20 thread.

It was planned to utilise the existing N20 from Blarney to the Burnfort turn off as an online upgrade actually.

Isambard

that's what I said. An alternative road for non motorway traffic will be necessary alongside, supporting my point that a motorway is often more expensive than an HQDC

Kevwoody

Isambard wrote: »

that's what I said. An alternative road for non motorway traffic will be necessary alongside, supporting my point that a motorway is often more expensive than an HQDC

But the EU funding is for a Motorway, not a HQDC, so it's a non point anyway.

It's either a motorway or nothing.

Vanquished

Isambard wrote: »

that's what I said. An alternative road for non motorway traffic will be necessary alongside, supporting my point that a motorway is often more expensive than an HQDC

You said from Rathduff to Mallow. That was incorrect.

Isambard

Vanquished wrote: »

You said from Rathduff to Mallow. That was incorrect.

"from Blarney to halfway from Rathduff to Mallow " is what I said!

marno21

MOD:

It's one thing debating about what you want and don't want, it's another thing debating whether facts are facts or not. So lets establish a few facts here.

1. The original 2009/10 M20 plan invisaged a dualling of the Croom bypass from the existing L1427 turnoff to the GSJ. This included the construction of a distributor road west of Croom as an alternative route because the existing route through Croom is quite narrow and generally unsuitable. As part of this plan, the existing N20/R516 junction would be shut and a new junction opened further north, which would tie in with a planned N21 Adare bypass. As the N21 Adare bypass has been deleted in favour of a new route north of the town, this will need total remodelling in the new M20 plan.

2. There was a plan for an upgrade of the New Mallow Road south of the Burnfort turnoff. The exact routing can be seen here: http://www.corkrdo.ie/files/M20_Cork_Limerick_Motorway%20Scheme_Preliminary%20Design_June_2009/handout_01_02.pdf

3. The N28 upgrade south of Carrs Hill has got to be motorway to qualify for EU funding. An upgrade of the existing road would require significant CPOing and would not be viable considering the fact that they would miss out on the EU funding. There is no debate as to whether Ringaskiddy-Carrs Hill will be motorway. It's been decided it will



Debate is welcome but debating whether facts are facts or not is pointless.

Isambard

clearly shown , for instance, is the "eastern parallel road" which would not necessarily be needed if this were HQDC rather than Motorway. Thus a Motorway and an HQDC don't necessarily cost the same as has been claimed. Thus the N28 could be regarded as wasteful if built as a Motorway,

Your question was "should it be built" , if there are just yes and no answers, then I'm saying no. But it's just my opinion

AugustusMinimus

Isambard, a few issues, some already noted by myself about what the M28 needs to be built with an alternative route.

1. The current route of the N28 is simply not suitable to be expanded into a HQDC N28. The route is too hilly in places with a number of areas where the corner radius would simply be too tight.

2. There are a huge number of houses on the current N28. Should all of these houses be CPO'ed and demolished ?

3. The current village of Shanbally is on the N28. This entire village would required CPO'ing and being demolished.

4. If on-line build, the current Old Carriagline Road would terminate on a HQDC. This is not acceptable for pedestrians and cyclists alike.

5. The Ballinrea Road, The L6477 and about a further 8 local roads terminate on the N28. These roads would either have to be permanently blocked on one end or full access would have to be granted to the HQDC N28. This is not acceptable in either sense given pedestrian and cyclists needs. Also, this would be terrible for local residents.

6. The plan is to reclaim the current N28 to allow further development of Douglas, Maryborough and Moneygurney. This would not be possible with an online build.

7. Their are huge plans for the local road network, a lot of which will use the old N28 to allow better local traffic movements in the area. No longer possible with an online build.

8. Having an alternative route, increases the capacity of traffic movements in the area and also provides a fail safe route in the case of traffic accidents etc.

9. I do not know of a single HQDC built in Ireland without any alternative route. Could you name a few ?

BelfastVanMan

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Isambard, a few issues, some already noted by myself about what the M28 needs to be built with an alternative route.

1. The current route of the N28 is simply not suitable to be expanded into a HQDC N28. The route is too hilly in places with a number of areas where the corner radius would simply be too tight.

2. There are a huge number of houses on the current N28. Should all of these houses be CPO'ed and demolished ?

3. The current village of Shanbally is on the N28. This entire village would required CPO'ing and being demolished.

4. If on-line build, the current Old Carriagline Road would terminate on a HQDC. This is not acceptable for pedestrians and cyclists alike.

5. The Ballinrea Road, The L6477 and about a further 8 local roads terminate on the N28. These roads would either have to be permanently blocked on one end or full access would have to be granted to the HQDC N28. This is not acceptable in either sense given pedestrian and cyclists needs. Also, this would be terrible for local residents.

6. The plan is to reclaim the current N28 to allow further development of Douglas, Maryborough and Moneygurney. This would not be possible with an online build.

7. Their are huge plans for the local road network, a lot of which will use the old N28 to allow better local traffic movements in the area. No longer possible with an online build.

8. Having an alternative route, increases the capacity of traffic movements in the area and also provides a fail safe route in the case of traffic accidents etc.

9. I do not know of a single HQDC built in Ireland without any alternative route. Could you name a few ?

The N1, between junctions 16
and 18.

BelfastVanMan

BelfastVanMan wrote: »

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Isambard, a few issues, some already noted by myself about what the M28 needs to be built with an alternative route.

1. The current route of the N28 is simply not suitable to be expanded into a HQDC N28. The route is too hilly in places with a number of areas where the corner radius would simply be too tight.

2. There are a huge number of houses on the current N28. Should all of these houses be CPO'ed and demolished ?

3. The current village of Shanbally is on the N28. This entire village would required CPO'ing and being demolished.

4. If on-line build, the current Old Carriagline Road would terminate on a HQDC. This is not acceptable for pedestrians and cyclists alike.

5. The Ballinrea Road, The L6477 and about a further 8 local roads terminate on the N28. These roads would either have to be permanently blocked on one end or full access would have to be granted to the HQDC N28. This is not acceptable in either sense given pedestrian and cyclists needs. Also, this would be terrible for local residents.

6. The plan is to reclaim the current N28 to allow further development of Douglas, Maryborough and Moneygurney. This would not be possible with an online build.

7. Their are huge plans for the local road network, a lot of which will use the old N28 to allow better local traffic movements in the area. No longer possible with an online build.

8. Having an alternative route, increases the capacity of traffic movements in the area and also provides a fail safe route in the case of traffic accidents etc.

9. I do not know of a single HQDC built in Ireland without any alternative route. Could you name a few ?

The N1, between junctions 16
and 18.

Correction...between 18 and 20.
My apoligies

AugustusMinimus

BelfastVanMan wrote: »

BelfastVanMan wrote: »

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Isambard, a few issues, some already noted by myself about what the M28 needs to be built with an alternative route.

1. The current route of the N28 is simply not suitable to be expanded into a HQDC N28. The route is too hilly in places with a number of areas where the corner radius would simply be too tight.

2. There are a huge number of houses on the current N28. Should all of these houses be CPO'ed and demolished ?

3. The current village of Shanbally is on the N28. This entire village would required CPO'ing and being demolished.

4. If on-line build, the current Old Carriagline Road would terminate on a HQDC. This is not acceptable for pedestrians and cyclists alike.

5. The Ballinrea Road, The L6477 and about a further 8 local roads terminate on the N28. These roads would either have to be permanently blocked on one end or full access would have to be granted to the HQDC N28. This is not acceptable in either sense given pedestrian and cyclists needs. Also, this would be terrible for local residents.

6. The plan is to reclaim the current N28 to allow further development of Douglas, Maryborough and Moneygurney. This would not be possible with an online build.

7. Their are huge plans for the local road network, a lot of which will use the old N28 to allow better local traffic movements in the area. No longer possible with an online build.

8. Having an alternative route, increases the capacity of traffic movements in the area and also provides a fail safe route in the case of traffic accidents etc.

9. I do not know of a single HQDC built in Ireland without any alternative route. Could you name a few ?

The N1, between junctions 16
and 18.

Correction...between 18 and 20.
My apoligies

What about the old sections of the R132?

marno21

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

What about the old sections of the R132?

Is it Google maps you're looking at?

Between Junction 19 and 20, the old N1 was subsumed into the new N1 HQDC. The road marked R132 on Google Maps is only an old boreen that connected J19 and J20 general areas and has been incorrectly labelled as an alternative route, of which it's not suitable. The old road reappears at J20 and becomes the B113 at the border. The road would have to lose motorway restrictions at J20 anyway for the border crossing so it's not an issue, and in 99% of cases in Ireland there is a clear distinct alternative route for motorways/HQDCs.

In the case of the old N28, the old road will be used for local access and general local traffic. Dualling the existing road would not be an option.

DoubleJoe7

I think it's unfair to dismiss genuinely held concerns as "invalid" or "scaremongering.

Sections of the existing N28 comes within 20 metres of some people's back gardens, they're entitled to a certain level of quality of life and building a motorway that close to someone's home is bound to have a negative impact in terms of noise pollution for a start.

Ludo

That article from the Echo mentions:

The M28 Steering Group, which is set to host next week’s meeting, said that the closure of existing slip roads onto the N28 will result in significant gridlock throughout Maryborough Hill and Rochestown.

What slip roads does this refer to?

Isambard

the one from Maryborough Hill would be a good bet . The only other I can think of is the Mount Oval one which if memory serves is off only