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

boardsuser1

Here is the Environmental Impact Statement for those who may not have already seen it.

http://www.n28cork-ringaskiddy.com/EIS/EIS%20-%20Combined%20Document.pdf

Middle Man

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

The steering group posted the following comment in reply to a negative review overnight:




M28 Steering Group Hi Julie, sorry to see A negative review, which is disappointing considering what the group represents. A few points to make in the groups defence. One-everyone knows and accepts the n28 has exceeded capacity- this is a separate issue. Two- air and noise pollution have detrimental effects on people's health-FACT. Three-diesel fuel is worse than petrol in this regard-FACT. Four- this makes NIMBY-ism ok if it is your own back yard, for the reasons above, not to mention the photomontage of the house in newlyn vale.

Have you got children? If you do, would you be happy to have 4000 diesel trucks a day running within a few metres of your home while they play in the garden, KNOWING that diesel emissions cause lung cancer? (And are even more harmful to children than adults). Call it NIMBYism or whatever you like, but this is a valid human health issue that shouldn't be ignored for the sake of a road, and 10,000 others, not to mention most of the local TDs, would agree.

Basically, they're going round in circles - they talk about traffic and the effects thereof (something that they're surely contributing to), then they talk about effects of a road that is already there with that traffic. The latest now - they talk about the health of children, but yet want to keep an inappropriate off slip that's allowing children to access the N28 easily - some of those with a ball - now come on...

boardsuser1

I have reached out to Cllr Deirdre Forde who is a resident in the Douglas area.

I did receive a response from her, what are people's opinions on the response below?


"Hi thanks for your message I have no problem in all sides making their views known and welcome debate.Could you email me letting me know who you are etc and if you made a submission to An Bord Planala. My email is info@deirdreforde.ie and I will get back to you then. Regards Deirdre"

boardsuser1

Can't upload individual links from the steering group page for an unknown reason, Have a look at the most recent status which includes a bad photoshop from the Rochestown Road :rolleyes:

https://www.facebook.com/M28-Steering-Group-175111606272101/

DoubleJoe7

marno21 wrote: »

Using the phrase "NIMBY" isn't name calling, it's a perfectly apt phrase for people who don't want infrastructure being built simply because its near them. The Steering Group go on about noise and air pollution, but they are happy to shift all this so called pollution to the people of Ballygarvan. That's out and out NIMBYism, simple.

The M28 Steering Group have gone from being a group to try and get resident's concerns heard to a group trying to stop the construction of the M28 at all costs and are refusing to engage in any form of debate. In my opinion, they are behaving like the Taliban. The amount of abuse I got from a member of the Steering Group as a result of trying to address their concerns further strengthens my beliefs.

Also, I fail to see where Cork Truck Driver attacked Marcia Dalton. It's a very valid question as to why a qualified, and allegedly (I can't say as I've never seen the woman's work) good engineer sits on the Passage West Town Council. It's just a question we are asking; not attacking.

Regardless of what side of the debate one stands on, it is absolutely incredible that the moderator of a discussion on infrastructure has free reign to compare one side to the Taliban. Is it any wonder that Dan Boyle was reluctant to post here?

marno21

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

Regardless of what side of the debate one stands on, it is absolutely incredible that the moderator of a discussion on infrastructure has free reign to compare one side to the Taliban. Is it any wonder that Dan Boyle was reluctant to post here?

I haven't compared one side to the Taliban. I have compared one element of one side to the Taliban. This is a particularly abusive group who are determined to stop the M28 at all costs, not trying to ensure the concerns of residents are taken into account. A "spokesperson" for this particular group has caused trouble on this forum by abusing people, myself included, when his myths were busted and he turned to outright lies and spoof.

I have at no point attempted to stifle discussion. It's little surprise that a forum mainly comprised of posters who are in favour of development are critical of a group wanting to spend hundreds of millions of Euro to shift a motorway to Ballinhassig for their own "benefit", meanwhile most of their neighbours are in favour of the project as submitted to ABP because of the clear benefits.

If you have an issue with this, either PM me or a CMod/admin. Please do not discuss this on thread in future.

DoubleJoe7

marno21 wrote: »

I haven't compared one side to the Taliban. I have compared one element of one side to the Taliban. This is a particularly abusive group who are determined to stop the M28 at all costs, not trying to ensure the concerns of residents are taken into account. A "spokesperson" for this particular group has caused trouble on this forum by abusing people, myself included, when his myths were busted and he turned to outright lies and spoof.

I have at no point attempted to stifle discussion. It's little surprise that a forum mainly comprised of posters who are in favour of development are critical of a group wanting to spend hundreds of millions of Euro to shift a motorway to Ballinhassig for their own "benefit", meanwhile most of their neighbours are in favour of the project as submitted to ABP because of the clear benefits.

If you have an issue with this, either PM me or a CMod/admin. Please do not discuss this on thread in future.

Right - so just so we're clear, you have free reign to liken people to the Taliban, but I'm not allowed post in the thread express my incredulity at this? It's little wonder that this thread is, in your words, "mainly comprised of posters who are in favour of development" when it is being moderated by someone with contempt for people who oppose it.

I stand by what I said. It's no surprise that Dan Boyle - or anyone else with concerns about this project for that matter - are reluctant to post here when the thread moderator is behaving in this manner.

BelfastVanMan

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

marno21 wrote: »

I haven't compared one side to the Taliban. I have compared one element of one side to the Taliban. This is a particularly abusive group who are determined to stop the M28 at all costs, not trying to ensure the concerns of residents are taken into account. A "spokesperson" for this particular group has caused trouble on this forum by abusing people, myself included, when his myths were busted and he turned to outright lies and spoof.

I have at no point attempted to stifle discussion. It's little surprise that a forum mainly comprised of posters who are in favour of development are critical of a group wanting to spend hundreds of millions of Euro to shift a motorway to Ballinhassig for their own "benefit", meanwhile most of their neighbours are in favour of the project as submitted to ABP because of the clear benefits.

If you have an issue with this, either PM me or a CMod/admin. Please do not discuss this on thread in future.

Right - so just so we're clear, you have free reign to liken people to the Taliban, but I'm not allowed post in the thread express my incredulity at this? It's little wonder that this thread is, in your words, "mainly comprised of posters who are in favour of development" when it is being moderated by someone with contempt for people who oppose it.

I stand by what I said. It's no surprise that Dan Boyle - or anyone else with concerns about this project for that matter - are reluctant to post here when the thread moderator is behaving in this manner.

What, being factual??

DoubleJoe7

BelfastVanMan wrote: »

What, being factual??

Enlighten me as to the facts that justify comparing objectors to a road to militant Islamic fundamentalists.

Baldilocks

take the time to read back through the thread.

Sam Russell

Mod: Could you cool it with this name calling.

boardsuser1

The steering group (Harrington?) feeling under pressure?

M28 Steering Group Julie/Patricia the facebook page is not a very suitable forum for detailed debate, and was not set up for that reason.It was set up to raise awareness and share information with local residents impacted by the motorway. Everyone involved with this group does everything on a voluntary basis, and if you disagree with the group, and feel you are not represented by same, that is your prerogative- you are welcome to voluntarily give up your own time to speak at the oral hearing with any concerns you may have. Please note there will be no further replies to this thread

BelfastVanMan

When they behave as such...

kub

I read this last night http://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Gridlock-in-Cork-as-4000-extra-cars-a-day-using-the-Jack-Lynch-Tunnel-every-day-b822f8c0-1e0a-46ee-af09-66bf21324f69-ds

And i thought, Grid Lock in Cork but no mention of the M28.

What a joke of a paper.

boardsuser1

kub wrote: »

I read this last night http://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Gridlock-in-Cork-as-4000-extra-cars-a-day-using-the-Jack-Lynch-Tunnel-every-day-b822f8c0-1e0a-46ee-af09-66bf21324f69-ds

And i thought, Grid Lock in Cork but no mention of the M28.

What a joke of a paper.

As the M28 oral hearing has yet to conclude they probably don’t want to anger anybody by making a direct mention of it.

As for the paper itself,the standard has dropped somewhat over the years.

Golfer50

kub wrote: »

I read this last night http://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Gridlock-in-Cork-as-4000-extra-cars-a-day-using-the-Jack-Lynch-Tunnel-every-day-b822f8c0-1e0a-46ee-af09-66bf21324f69-ds

And i thought, Grid Lock in Cork but no mention of the M28.

What a joke of a paper.

Imagine dumping all the port traffic on top of that. Dire prospect.

Aontachtoir

Golfer50 wrote: »

Imagine dumping all the port traffic on top of that. Dire prospect.

Yes indeed. We need to complete the ring road and provide a western Lee crossing if we want to relieve the tunnel. Of course, seeing as the port is already moving the completion of the ring road needs to be happen anyway, along with the M28 and Dunkettle upgrades to allow traffic (including port traffic) to flow smoothly in Cork again.

All the more reason to support vital investment in infrastructure.

Golfer50

Aontachtoir wrote: »

All the more reason to support vital investment in infrastructure.

Absolutely . . . and logically direct traffic away from obvious and existing bottlenecks. Surely anything else is just a short term solution which will cost even more to rectify in the future.

Aontachtoir

Golfer50 wrote: »

Absolutely . . . and logically direct traffic away from obvious and existing bottlenecks. Surely anything else is just a short term solution which will cost even more to rectify in the future.

Exactly. Avoiding bottlenecks is an absolute planning priority. Incidentally, this is why it would be very foolish to try and divert the port traffic to the overloaded and dysfunctional Kinsale Road Roundabout instead of the somewhat functional Bloomfield Interchange.

Furthermore, the coming upgrade to the Dunkettle Roundabout will significantly increase its capacity and the capacity of neighbouring stretches of the N40, M8, and N25.

The only logical immediate way forward is to continue with the M28 and the Dunkettle upgrade. Anything else would fail to solve traffic problems or (as in the suggested alternate route via the Kinsale Road Roundabout) would make them even worse.

Golfer50

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Exactly. Avoiding bottlenecks is an absolute planning priority. Incidentally, this is why it would be very foolish to try and divert the port traffic to the overloaded and dysfunctional Kinsale Road Roundabout instead of the somewhat functional Bloomfield Interchange. . . .


Anything else would fail to solve traffic problems or (as in the suggested alternate route via the Kinsale Road Roundabout) would make them even worse.

I agree completely that the Kinsale Road roundabout is not the way to go. You seem to partly concede that Bloomfield is not ideal?
Personally I would prefer something much further westwards that could link to Limerick and Cork northern ring.

boardsuser1

Golfer50 wrote: »

Personally I would prefer something much further westwards that could link to Limerick and Cork northern ring.

You would be advocating Ballygarvan??

Aontachtoir

Golfer50 wrote: »

I agree completely that the Kinsale Road roundabout is not the way to go. You seem to partly concede that Bloomfield is not ideal?
Personally I would prefer something much further westwards that could link to Limerick and Cork northern ring.

Bloomfield is not perfect, but it is by far the best and most sensible option available in the real world.

Golfer50

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Bloomfield is not perfect, but it is by far the best and most sensible option available in the real world.

I just measured the noise from Bloomfield inside my house and am getting peaks of 65dB and average 57. So in my world I'm afraid Bloomfield is not the most sensible option.

Kevwoody

Golfer50 wrote: »

I just measured the noise from Bloomfield inside my house and am getting peaks of 65dB and average 57. So in my world I'm afraid Bloomfield is not the most sensible option.

Regardless of where the M28 is routed, Bloomfield is always going to be there. It ain't going anywhere!
What the steering group can't seem to understand is that under the current plan, noise levels will actually be decreased, using noise reducing Tarmac, and noise barriers.
Not to mention no more Diesel engines sitting idling on Carrs Hill.

Aontachtoir

Golfer50 wrote: »

I just measured the noise from Bloomfield inside my house and am getting peaks of 65dB and average 57. So in my world I'm afraid Bloomfield is not the most sensible option.

I'll take your word for it, Golfer. However, the noise level inside your house doesn't really alter the fact that the Bloomfield Interchange is the most sensible route. If we route the M28 elsewhere, the port traffic will still pour down that hill outside your house, and you won't have the benefit of the noise mitigation measures proposed as part of the build.

Traffic on the road will increase no matter what. Upgrading the M28 allows better traffic management at Bloomfield and better noise mitigation. Opposing the upgrade will not reduce traffic or noise, but will only make things worse.

Golfer50

Kevwoody wrote: »

Regardless of where the M28 is routed, Bloomfield is always going to be there. It ain't going anywhere!
What the steering group can't seem to understand is that under the current plan, noise levels will actually be decreased, using noise reducing Tarmac, and noise barriers.
Not to mention no more Diesel engines sitting idling on Carrs Hill.

I agree with you to an extent. There should be sound barriers right now but there aren't. The area has been abandoned by the Council for years (despite its profile in the 2012 noise maps, noise action areas etc.) and now the TII and Council have stated in the EIS that they are under no obligation to barrier the Northern section because this is an existing road!! They did not rate the prposed Northern Diverge to Kinsale Rd as "new" development. This is the rubbish You have to endure from these people. It was restated by them at the hearing that barriers here would depend on budgets etc. The only positive I heard was that ABP would be insisting on proper barriers when/if this M28 plan is approved.
There is already a low noise surface in the area.

Golfer50

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I'll take your word for it, Golfer. However, the noise level inside your house doesn't really alter the fact that the Bloomfield Interchange is the most sensible route. If we route the M28 elsewhere, the port traffic will still pour down that hill outside your house, and you won't have the benefit of the noise mitigation measures proposed as part of the build.

I would say that Bloomfield is a short sighted solution. Sure it is the line of least resistance now but it is not future proof.
If there was an alternative route for port traffic or hgvs in general, they could be directed to that route and precluded from using the existing n28.
If the present n28 is not dumped on we can return to trying to get something done in terms of mitigation although, based on my experience, I have zero confidence that TII or CoCoCo will protect people adequately from noise etc whether this thing is approved or not

kub

Golfer50 wrote: »

I would say that Bloomfield is a short sighted solution. Sure it is the line of least resistance now but it is not future proof.
If there was an alternative route for port traffic or hgvs in general, they could be directed to that route and precluded from using the existing n28.
If the present n28 is not dumped on we can return to trying to get something done in terms of mitigation although, based on my experience, I have zero confidence that TII or CoCoCo will protect people adequately from noise etc whether this thing is approved or not

It is not just nasty, horrible and evil HGV's that will be using the M28 to Bloomfield but cars as well. How do you propose that port traffic be prohibited from using the Mulcon Valley.
As someone who often gets stuck there, i just cannot make out what vehicle comes from where.

DoubleJoe7

Golfer50 wrote: »

I agree with you to an extent. There should be sound barriers right now but there aren't. The area has been abandoned by the Council for years (despite its profile in the 2012 noise maps, noise action areas etc.) and now the TII and Council have stated in the EIS that they are under no obligation to barrier the Northern section because this is an existing road!! They did not rate the prposed Northern Diverge to Kinsale Rd as "new" development. This is the rubbish You have to endure from these people. It was restated by them at the hearing that barriers here would depend on budgets etc. The only positive I heard was that ABP would be insisting on proper barriers when/if this M28 plan is approved.
There is already a low noise surface in the area.

And that's a huge concern. For all the talk within the EIS, the Council's track record on reducing noise on that road has been atrocious so there's no trust there.

As for Bloomfield, I can't understand how a single long looping lane linking to the N40 eastbound can be expected to have the capacity for the proposed increased traffic.

Golfer50

kub wrote: »

How do you propose that port traffic be prohibited from using the Mulcon Valley.

Put up a big sign!

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2006/si/637/made/en/print

Part 3

Regulatory Signs - Upright

Prohibited vehicles

5. (1) Traffic sign number RUS 046 (“sign RUS 046”) shall, when provided on a public road -

(a) indicate that the driver of a prohibited vehicle shall not proceed beyond the sign, and

(b) consist of a white disc with a red border containing an oblique red bar and, in black, a symbol depicting a vehicle axle and the letter “x” associated with a figure signifying that the total number of axles being specified on the sign is one axle multiplied by the figure displayed.