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

AugustusMinimus

They are adding a whole new road between Maryborough Hill and the Old Carrigaline Road to facilitate this lost movement.

In fact, the new Carr's Hill interchange will give Maryborough Hill full movements with the new M28 which should significantly help with traffic in the area.

This Steering Group are only looking for problems which don't exist.

Ludo

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

In fact, the new Carr's Hill interchange will give Maryborough Hill full movements with the new M28 which should significantly help with traffic in the area.

I guess that depends which area you mean. For example, will this new access to the M28 in both directions potentially increase traffic taking Coach Hill to get to or from it? This is a ridiculously narrow road in one place with no footpath. Yet is used a lot by pedestrians and kids going to.coming from school. It is already dangerous to walk there as some morons don't even slow down for the narrow section. Any increase in traffic on this road IS dangerous.

AugustusMinimus

Ludo wrote: »

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

In fact, the new Carr's Hill interchange will give Maryborough Hill full movements with the new M28 which should significantly help with traffic in the area.

I guess that depends which area you mean. For example, will this new access to the M28 in both directions potentially increase traffic taking Coach Hill to get to or from it? This is a ridiculously narrow road in one place with no footpath. Yet is used a lot by pedestrians and kids going to.coming from school. It is already dangerous to walk there as some morons don't even slow down for the narrow section. Any increase in traffic on this road IS dangerous.

Agreed. Traffic increase here won't be near as bad as it could have been due to the link road to Carr's Hill interchange going through Maryborough Ridge now not happening.

There are plans for the widening and installation of paths / traffic calming on both Clarkes and Coach Hill similar to done on Moneygurney Road. IMO getting this done should be a much higher priority as that narrow section on Coach Hill is dangerous already.

Ludo

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Agreed. Traffic increase here won't be near as bad as it could have been due to the link road to Carr's Hill interchange going through Maryborough Ridge now not happening.

Yeah...the fact this is not being done now does probably mean Coach Hill will not see an increase in traffic.

boardsuser1

Ludo wrote: »

Yeah...the fact this is not being done now does probably mean Coach Hill will not see an increase in traffic.

That place is bad enough without any extra traffic, along with Clarkes hill.

AugustusMinimus

KC161 wrote: »

Ludo wrote: »

Yeah...the fact this is not being done now does probably mean Coach Hill will not see an increase in traffic.

That place is bad enough without any extra traffic, along with Clarkes hill.

Clarkes Hill is fine. It's the junction at the bottom which is the problem. The upgraded Carrs Hill interchange would probably reduce traffic at this junction though.

boardsuser1

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Clarkes Hill is fine. It's the junction at the bottom which is the problem. The upgraded Carrs Hill interchange would probably reduce traffic at this junction though.

The meeting of the locals is taking place in the Rochestown Park Hotel tomorrow.

Are any CPO's required in that area or is it all purely to do with noise/air pollution?

The government will force this through anyway i recking due to the port of Cork being relocated.

marno21

KC161 wrote: »

The meeting of the locals is taking place in the Rochestown Park Hotel tomorrow.

Are any CPO's required in that area or is it all purely to do with noise/air pollution?

The government will force this through anyway i recking due to the port of Cork being relocated.

The CPO hasn't been published yet as the final scheme has not been publicly displayed. CPOs along the mainline N28 between Carrs Hill and the N40 will be minimal.

The meeting tomorrow is more about the proposed destruction of Douglas and Rochestown and the guaranteed respiratory illnesses and sleepless nights.

boardsuser1

marno21 wrote: »

The CPO hasn't been published yet as the final scheme has not been publicly displayed. CPOs along the mainline N28 between Carrs Hill and the N40 will be minimal.

The meeting tomorrow is more about the proposed destruction of Douglas and Rochestown and the guaranteed respiratory illnesses and sleepless nights.

No doubting that.

Just to compare this with the now M8, when they were building that motorway, was there s much opposition to it as there is to the M28?

I can't remember much except for Denis Dineen of Watergrasshill seeking to have the bypass of the town restored after it was effectively removed in 2006.

Is it a case that the ECJ could get involved here?

marno21

KC161 wrote: »

No doubting that.

Just to compare this with the now M8, when they were building that motorway, was there s much opposition to it as there is to the M28?

I can't remember much except for Denis Dineen of Watergrasshill seeking to have the bypass of the town restored after it was effectively removed in 2006.

Is it a case that the ECJ could get involved here?

Any part of the M8 in particular? Before my time though.

Watergrasshill has an L road bypass effectively, between the northern element and the southern element of the M8 interchange. It's more than a lot of places have.

Isambard

the Watergrasshill bypass was an oddity it is true. I believe it was built because WGH had been bypassed preM8 and the town was naturally unhappy to have non-motorway traffic back in the village. It went from the motorway junction across the M8 alongside it to the north and back over again where it ran into the village almost to regain the old road. Access to the village was blocked of from the south . Later a connection across the field to the old road was built north of the village. Later still the roadblock to the south was quietly removed.

marno21

Anyone attend the meeting tonight?

marno21

http://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Road-rage-from-residents-at-M28-plan-39501123-f74f-4b8f-bd97-b0cfe891ea99-ds

Article from last nights gathering at the Rochestown Park Hotel.

Half the "issues" expressed here have NOTHING to do with the M28.

Ludo

marno21 wrote: »

Half the "issues" expressed here have NOTHING to do with the M28.

Can you be more specific please? Which issues do you refer to in particular as everything I read in that is related to the road. Whether you agree with them or not is a different issue.

marno21

The replacement of roundabouts in Douglas with signals, the construction of new housing in Rochestown and the noise levels aren't going to change if the motorway isn't built, they are independent of the M28 scheme. The speed limit on the route will still be 100km/h and heavy vehicles will still use the Sli Carrigdhoun if the motorway is built via Ballygarvan.

It's not about whether I agree or not, it's straight facts

Ludo

Where did you see that the roundabouts on the Rochestown Road will be replaced regardless of the M28?

Isambard

it seems a classic case of people pushing for something that will benefit them irrespective of the effect on others..

marno21

Isambard wrote: »

it seems a classic case of people pushing for something that will benefit them irrespective of the effect on others..

Yes, that does seem to be the plan of the M28 Steering Group.

marno21

Ludo wrote: »

Where did you see that the roundabouts on the Rochestown Road will be replaced regardless of the M28?

I see no mention in any official M28 documentation about this proposal to replace the Fingerpost roundabout with lights. For starters, it's a 5 arm roundabout, which is incredibly difficult to signalise.

Either this is a plan by the council independent of the M28, which wouldn't surprise me, or else it's made up by the Steering Group, which also wouldn't surprise me.

marno21

Also, Isambard and Ludo can you briefly sum up why you are anti-M28? I can't see any actual reasons posted by either of you as to why.

boardsuser1

marno21 wrote: »

I see no mention in any official M28 documentation about this proposal to replace the Fingerpost roundabout with lights. For starters, it's a 5 arm roundabout, which is incredibly difficult to signalise.

Either this is a plan by the council independent of the M28, which wouldn't surprise me, or else it's made up by the Steering Group, which also wouldn't surprise me.

Unless they try and signalise it like the Kinsale Road roundabout

Isambard

marno21 wrote: »

Also, Isambard and Ludo can you briefly sum up why you are anti-M28? I can't see any actual reasons posted by either of you as to why.

I don't think the case for it is proven.

I believe I did say early on that sections of the road definitely need improving.Yes the road gets busy but my impression is that most of the traffic is peak hour and a large proportion comes from Carrigaline. Improve the truly awful unimproved bit to give a modern road as far out as the Carrigaline roundabout might be enough

Ludo

marno21 wrote: »

Also, Isambard and Ludo can you briefly sum up why you are anti-M28? I can't see any actual reasons posted by either of you as to why.

Who said I am against it?

Kevwoody

Isambard wrote: »

I don't think the case for it is proven.

I believe I did say early on that sections of the road definitely need improving.Yes the road gets busy but my impression is that most of the traffic is peak hour and a large proportion comes from Carrigaline. Improve the truly awful unimproved bit to give a modern road as far out as the Carrigaline roundabout might be enough

There is no such thing as a peak hour on this road, it is constantly busy all day long, I know from experience having spent a full day working on it.

Rooy

2 Quick questions which would satisfy some of my concerns , in regard the road layout , in terms of heading north on the proposed M28 , is there now a more defined East /West passages as you approach the bloomfield interchange ,with the Westbound one being entirely new at least that is what it looks like in planning drawings to me.
In addition , as you go East towards the tunnel currently and take the Exit to N28 , it there any proposed changes on that single lane exit before then joining M28.
Sorry if that comes across lazy that I didnt look at plans in detail , just seeking a bit of clarification !

commonsense.

marno21 wrote: »

Anyone attend the meeting tonight?

Yeah, was at the meeting. Very big crowd there.

AugustusMinimus

From a resident perspective I think the most divisive part of this scheme is the new sliproad heading West onto the

AugustusMinimus

From a resident perspective I think the most divisive part of this scheme is the new sliproad heading West onto the N40 as it gets very close to people's homes.

The widening of the current part should be ok as long as adequate sound proofing is installed.

Pollution argument is a non runner IMO. This road will significantly reduce congestion and traffic in the area. Will reduce pollution if anything.

Mount Oval slip is being kept.

Closure of Maryborough slip is the biggest non issue. Maryborough Hill will have dramatically better access due to this scheme.

Worse local traffic in the area. Doesn't stack up. Pressure will be taken off both the Rochestown Roundabout and Clarkes Hill with Carr's Hill interchange providing another alternative.

Destruction of Mulcon Valley. It's a road they're building. They aren't nuking the valley. They seem to have no issues destroying other areas of farmland with the groups alternative proposals.

Removal of roundabouts. Not part of the M28 scheme and are planned by Cork CoCo to go ahead regardless.


I also have issues with they're alternative route.

1. It will be much longer and much more expensive as a result.
2. Vast majority of traffic will still use old road.
3. Kinsale Roundabout or Bandon Roundabout cannot handle more traffic from the south.

I didn't attend the meeting but I hope the Groups arguments are more credible in person. They're awareness campaign is a disgrace full of scaremongering and hyperbole. The majority of assertions have no grounding and evidence is thin on the ground.

AugustusMinimus

Rooy wrote: »

2 Quick questions which would satisfy some of my concerns , in regard the road layout , in terms of heading north on the proposed M28 , is there now a more defined East /West passages as you approach the bloomfield interchange ,with the Westbound one being entirely new at least that is what it looks like in planning drawings to me.
In addition , as you go East towards the tunnel currently and take the Exit to N28 , it there any proposed changes on that single lane exit before then joining M28.
Sorry if that comes across lazy that I didnt look at plans in detail , just seeking a bit of clarification !

Correct on Westbound. No change going east.

AugustusMinimus

Isambard wrote: »

marno21 wrote: »

Also, Isambard and Ludo can you briefly sum up why you are anti-M28? I can't see any actual reasons posted by either of you as to why.

I don't think the case for it is proven.

I believe I did say early on that sections of the road definitely need improving.Yes the road gets busy but my impression is that most of the traffic is peak hour and a large proportion comes from Carrigaline. Improve the truly awful unimproved bit to give a modern road as far out as the Carrigaline roundabout might be enough

1. The majority of this is being financed by the EU.
2. Traffic levels are enormous to Ringaskiddy which is the single largest industrial zone in the country.
3. Your plan would leave Shanbally with a bypass.

marno21

Isambard wrote: »

I don't think the case for it is proven.

I believe I did say early on that sections of the road definitely need improving.Yes the road gets busy but my impression is that most of the traffic is peak hour and a large proportion comes from Carrigaline. Improve the truly awful unimproved bit to give a modern road as far out as the Carrigaline roundabout might be enough

Ludo wrote: »

Who said I am against it?

I will reply to both posts together, including your original pre-edit post Ludo.

With every road scheme, a feasability study is conducted by TII before it can begin. This managed to pass that hurdle unsurprisingly, and from an EU point of view, the EU have mandated that Cork and Ringaskiddy must be connected by motorway as it's a Core link in Ireland (Dublin - Cork, Dublin - Belfast, Dublin - Limerick-Foynes, Cork-Ringaskiddy and Dublin Port Link (Port Tunnel)). The fact that 29k vehicles a day mean that the only road standard that meets current traffic levels and future projected growth mean that the only viable standard is full motorway.

The Environmental Impact Statement, which is due publishing soon, will reveal any concerns about the scheme. These days these are quite thorough, and will reveal any potential issues with the scheme. So far, the M28 Steering Group have yet to back up any claims they make, and claims such as "Destruction of Douglas/Rochestown/Maryborough/Mulcon Valley" are clear exaggerations with no founding. How this will destroy Douglas is beyond me, the roadbed is already in place all that's happening is its being dualled and relief points are being introduced, and of course the Bloomfield reconfiguration.

If the Mulcon Valley is so precious then there shouldn't be any houses on it. They are taking up a lot more space than a 20m wide road.

To sum up, this scheme will not directly benefit me. I live and work 100km away from the road, and have used the N28 twice in the last 3 years. However, I think the scheme is needed and any rational, neutral person will see this. The M28 is also the only scheme on this forum where people are trying to present an argument with no foundations or proof, and get very defensive when called out on it. I am not the only person who has challenged these many anti-M28 statements and I will continue to do so until someone presents me with ONE solid reason why it shouldn't be built. Most of the reasons against it have already been conclusively disproven. Of all motorway schemes in the country, this is one of the most viable.

AugustusMinimus

How long before this goes to ABP?

I'm guessing the "Steering committee's" next move is to object to planning.

If this fails, a trip to the courts. Let's see how long the steering committee lasts when they start asking residents for cash to go through the courts.

DoubleJoe7

Environmental report has been published.

"Overall? construction? phase? impacts? on? the? resident? community? are?expected? to? be? profound? long?
term? and? significant? negative? and? short? term? with? regard? to? the? proposed?M28? road."



Admits that "there will be overall increases in traffic demand
to and from Carr’s Hill Interchange with increased daily traffic flows predicted on the R609,
Garryduff Road, Clarke’s Hill (south of Mount Oval village) and on Maryborough Hill (north of the
proposed road). Other routes in the area including Rochestown Road, Clarke’s Hill (north of Mount
Oval) and Maryborough Hill (adjacent to Broadale) are predicted to have a decrease in daily flows."

Works through the night that will disrupt residents:

"Weekend and night time working will be necessary for critical works involving road closures i.e. for
the bridge works at Maryborough Hill. In addition to this, it is likely there will be need for other
works to be carried out at night time and weekends. Except for emergency work, construction
activity outside the normal working hours will require the explicit permission of the planning
authority. Any approval for night or weekend working will give consideration to the potential
disruptive effects there may be on nearby residences and restrictions on noise and other adverse
environmental emissions will be conditioned to any approval granted."

Visual impact - " 67 properties are predicted to have a Moderate
to Major impact; 192 properties are predicted to have a minor to moderate impact; 365 properties
are predicted to have a Minor impact" - this is AFTER mitigation.

"During? the? construction? phase? of? the? proposed? road? there? is? potential? for? significant? short? term???
impacts? on? the? residential? amenities? of? communities? residing? in? dwellings? located? closest? to? the?
proposed?road?project?in?Wainsfort,?Newlyn?Vale,?Rochestown?Rise,?Mount?Oval,?Delfern?Grove?and?
Maryborough?Heights?as?the?existing?tree?belt?along?the?N28?will?be?removed.??There?is?potential?for?
short?term?negative?visual?and?noise?impacts?as?a?result?during?the?construction?phase.??
There?is?potential?for?significant?short?term?negative?impacts?to?the?residents?within?the?Fairways?on?
Maryborough? Hill? and? other? residents? living? within? the? Maryborough? Hill? area? while? the?
Maryborough? Hill? Overbridge? is? being? replaced? due? to? noise,? vibration,? dust,? visual? impacts? and?
traffic?diversions?and?congestion.??
There?is? potential? for? significant? short? term?impacts? on? residential?amenities? of? those?living?within?
Rowan? Hill? in? Mount? Oval? and? The? Close? and? Edgewood? in? Maryborough? Ridge? during? the?
construction?of?the?retaining?wall?to?the?south?of?these?properties?due?to?the?associated?noise?and?
dust?generation.???
During? the? construction? phase? there? is? potential? for? slight? short? term? impacts? on? the? residential?
amenities? of? communities? residing? in? dwellings? to? the? south? of? the? Bloomfield? interchange? at?
Kiltegan?Park?and?Delford?Drive?due?to?construction?impacts?associated?with?the?construction?of?the?
N40?Westbound?Merge.?
There? is? potential? for? significant? short? term? negative? impacts? as? a? result? of? construction? work? to?
residents?living?within? the?Maryborough?Hill?area?particularly?those?living?in? close?proximity? to? the?
Maryborough?Hill?Overbridge? during? the? construction? of? the? replacement? bridge? due? to? noise?and?
vibration,?dust?and?visual?impacts?and?traffic?diversions?and?congestion.?
There?is?potential? for?moderate?short? term?negative?impacts?on?the? residential?amenities?of? those?
living?in?The?Downs?in?Mount?Oval?during?the?construction?phase?due?to?the?generation?of?noise?and?
dust."?


EDIT - apologies, copying and pasting from the report has seemed to replace spaces with question marks for some reason.

marno21

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

How long before this goes to ABP?

I'm guessing the "Steering committee's" next move is to object to planning.

If this fails, a trip to the courts. Let's see how long the steering committee lasts when they start asking residents for cash to go through the courts.

It was sent to ABP yesterday, the 16th. It's all in ABPs hands now.

marno21

Air pollution?

The findings of the air dispersion modelling indicate that predicted pollutant concentrations show
uniform spatial and temporal variation in general. Levels of all pollutants are predicted to be well
below the statutory limits for the protection of human health under all future scenarios whether the
proposed M28 Cork to Ringaskiddy Project is in operation or not.
At the level of changes presented for the proposed M28 alignment coupled with the proposed
changes in traffic the predicted air quality impact on local human and ecological receptors is classed
as ‘negligible’. A number of properties in Section 1 (north of Carr’s Hill) and along the offline section
of the M28 south of Carr’s Hill will experience small changes in levels of traffic derived pollution,
albeit at levels well below the limits for the protection of human health. As a consequence, these
properties are classed as experiencing a “negligible” air quality impact as a result of the proposed
road project.
Conversely, there are a number of properties located along the existing N28 south of Carr’s Hill and
in the villages of Shanbally and Ringaskiddy that will experience small to moderate decreases in
levels of traffic derived pollution, also at levels well below the limits for the protection of human
health. As above, these properties are classed as experiencing a “negligible” air quality impact as a
result of the proposed road project.

marno21

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

How long before this goes to ABP?

I'm guessing the "Steering committee's" next move is to object to planning.

If this fails, a trip to the courts. Let's see how long the steering committee lasts when they start asking residents for cash to go through the courts.

The M28 Steering Group are now accepting donations through their Facebook page. They also had donation buckets at the recent meeting in the Rochestown Park Hotel.

They are on about the sacrifice of the people of Douglas, Rochestown and Maryborough for the Port of Cork. Is this a ritual sacrifice or what?

feargale

Motorway to Ringaskiddy? FFS the first priority should be to upgrade the boreen from Cork to Limerick. Second and third cities of the state!

marno21

feargale wrote: »

Motorway to Ringaskiddy? FFS the first priority should be to upgrade the boreen from Cork to Limerick. Second and third cities of the state!

That's true, but there are a variety of reasons why the M28 is getting done first.

1. It's shorter - thus cheaper
2. It's part of the EU TEN-T Core network - suitable for EU funding and also EU madated upgrade by 2030.
3. It carries large volumes, 29k vehicles on peak days at the top of Carrs Hill
4. It's a requirement for the relocation of the Port of Cork to Ringaskiddy.

AugustusMinimus

marno21 wrote: »

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

How long before this goes to ABP?

I'm guessing the "Steering committee's" next move is to object to planning.

If this fails, a trip to the courts. Let's see how long the steering committee lasts when they start asking residents for cash to go through the courts.

The M28 Steering Group are now accepting donations through their Facebook page. They also had donation buckets at the recent meeting in the Rochestown Park Hotel.

They are on about the sacrifice of the people of Douglas, Rochestown and Maryborough for the Port of Cork. Is this a ritual sacrifice or what?

They'll be door to door before long.

marno21

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

They'll be door to door before long.

A lot of the ****e they're carrying on with has been conclusively disproven in the EIS, even though they were saying the EIS would back up their arguments according to TII.

"I don't want a motorway near my house" will go down like a lead balloon in the courts.

marno21

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/residents-battling-m28-motorway-plan-appeal-for-funding-help-450312.html

Examiner article from today. If the motorway was just for the Port of Cork it wouldn't have 3 junctions for Rochestown/Douglas.

Kevwoody

Absolutely ridiculous! How can they claim they represent 8,000 people when only a handful attend their meetings?
These people are not short of a few quid, if they want to hire engineers, who will most likely be in favour of a motorway, they should stump up the money themselves.

Cookiemunster

Kevwoody wrote: »

Absolutely ridiculous! How can they claim they represent 8,000 people when only a handful attend their meetings?
These people are not short of a few quid, if they want to hire engineers, who will most likely be in favour of a motorway, they should stump up the money themselves.

The question is why are the Examiner printing that as if it's true. The line should have read that they claimed to represent 8000 people. Is there an anti M28 agenda from the Examiner?

DoubleJoe7

Kevwoody wrote: »

Absolutely ridiculous! How can they claim they represent 8,000 people when only a handful attend their meetings?
These people are not short of a few quid, if they want to hire engineers, who will most likely be in favour of a motorway, they should stump up the money themselves.

Handful? There were over 600 at the meeting in Rochestown, standing room only. Many households only had one person go - ours included.

As for 'These people are not short of a few quid' - what does that mean?

The OP states "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" - but judging by some of the snide commentary on this thread, anyone who has concerns about this project is fair game to be dismissed.

marno21

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

Handful? There were over 600 at the meeting in Rochestown, standing room only. Many households only had one person go - ours included.

As for 'These people are not short of a few quid' - what does that mean?

The OP states "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" - but judging by some of the snide commentary on this thread, anyone who has concerns about this project is fair game to be dismissed.

What are your concerns?

Kevwoody

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

Handful? There were over 600 at the meeting in Rochestown, standing room only. Many households only had one person go - ours included.

As for 'These people are not short of a few quid' - what does that mean?

The OP states "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" - but judging by some of the snide commentary on this thread, anyone who has concerns about this project is fair game to be dismissed.

I don't mind people having concerns, it's to be expected for a project this size.
It's the lies and the scaremongering tactics that this group have resorted to which has attracted more people to it. Lies which have been proven wrong time after time. The reality of the situation is, there is no alternative route for this road, and if the steering group want to do something worthwhile, it should be to get the best quality surface, noise barrier, mature planting etc for the road.

DoubleJoe7

Kevwoody wrote: »

I don't mind people having concerns, it's to be expected for a project this size.
It's the lies and the scaremongering tactics that this group have resorted to which has attracted more people to it. Lies which have been proven wrong time after time. The reality of the situation is, there is no alternative route for this road, and if the steering group want to do something worthwhile, it should be to get the best quality surface, noise barrier, mature planting etc for the road.

What lies and where have they been disproven?

marno21 wrote: »

What are your concerns?

My concerns are that this will be a major source of disruption, stress and nuisance to residents, and even the EIS report prepared by those seeking to push this project through admit as much.

"Overall construction phase impacts on the resident community are expected to be profound long term and significant negative and short term with regard to the proposed M28 road."

"Any approval for night or weekend working will give consideration to the potential disruptive effects there may be on nearby residences and restrictions on noise and other adverse environmental emissions will be conditioned to any approval granted."

It states that the works will have a Moderate to Major visual impact to dozens of homes after mitigation.

"During the construction phase of the proposed road there is potential for significant short term impacts on the residential amenities of communities residing in dwellings located closest to the proposed road project in Wainsfort, Newlyn Vale, Rochestown Rise, Mount Oval, Delfern Grove and
Maryborough Heights as the existing tree belt along the N28 will be removed."

"There is potential for short term negative visual and noise impacts as a result during the construction phase."

"There is potential for significant short term negative impacts to the residents within the Fairways on Maryborough Hill and other residents living within the Maryborough Hill area while the Maryborough Hill Overbridge is being replaced due to noise, vibration, dust, visual impacts and
traffic diversions and congestion."

"There is potential for significant short term impacts on residential amenities of those living within Rowan Hill in Mount Oval and The Close and Edgewood in Maryborough Ridge during the construction of the retaining wall to the south of these properties due to the associated noise and dust generation."

"During the construction phase there is potential for slight short term impacts on the residential amenities of communities residing in dwellings to the south of the Bloomfield interchange at Kiltegan Park and Delford Drive due to construction impacts associated with the construction of the N40 Westbound Merge."

"There is potential for significant short term negative impacts as a result of construction work to residents living within the Maryborough Hill area particularly those living in close proximity to the Maryborough Hill Overbridge during the construction of the replacement bridge due to noise and vibration, dust and visual impacts and traffic diversions and congestion."

"There is potential for moderate short term negative impacts on the residential amenities of those living in The Downs in Mount Oval during the construction phase due to the generation of noise and dust."


All of the above are quotes from a report prepared by the company seeking approval for the project.

The noise and dust pollution in particular are a huge concern as many children live in these areas. I also question the assurances they give for after tthe motorway is built.

AugustusMinimus

The steering group have stated that Douglas, Rochestown and Maryborough will be destroyed by this road.

Could you please tell me how a road can destroy all of the buildings in the entire area?

Baldilocks

There is no doubting that there will be significant SHORT TERM negative consequences from construction work - this is unavoidable - regardless of the route chosen. Unfortunately, with the technology available to the construction industry at present, there is no way around this.

But most importantly, the LONG TERM effects are negligible, or things will be improved. Noise and Air pollution will be decreased - surely a good thing for kids in the area?? Dust can be kept down - many sites already use truck washes as HGV's are leaving site to ensure they do not bring mud debris off the site. The noise is regrettable but unavoidable (that said, the noise barriers could go up first as a mitigation step.

I am of the opinion that more should be done with regard to noise barriers for local residents, and inclusion of walkways, with trees similar to one near the N40 at Mahonpoint. But it's time to stop fooling yourselves that there is a great no. of people who are actively against this - people who will pay for a legal challenge, people who will march for it. 600 people may have been in the room, that doesn't mean they were all against it.

At the end of the day, the biggest change here is the addition of ONE extra lane inbound (northwards through the Mulcon Valley), which will eliminate stationary traffic heading northbound on the hill in the morning, and the addition of an extra lane further south to allow traffic easily get to Ringaskiddy, and eliminate the stationary traffic heading southbound. To be polite, it seems an awful fuss about some short term inconvenience which is likely to greatly improve traffic flow in the area. I hear no objections regarding the addition of the extra lane from the top of the hill down to Ringaskiddy? No scaremongering and/or twisting of words.

Do the many thousands of people who use the current road not get a say?? What about the residents of Carrigaline and it's hinterland - do they not get a say, it passes very close to the town of >20,000 people, and improves their access to the city, healthcare, etc.
(It baffles me how easy it is to object to something in this country - The M50 being the prime example. 250,000 people per day SENTENCED to spend time in their cars unneccessarily, burning fuel - going nowhere, all in the name of 'protection' of a collection of rocks, that was more than 1km from the road!!!)

marno21

The M28 Steering Group (who now apparently represent Ringaskiddy even though their alternative route still goes through Ringaskiddy) claims were:

1. Destruction of Douglas and Rochestown
2. Noise pollution above limits
3. Air pollution above limits
4. Massive congestion
5. TII told them the EIS indicated significant environmental impacts to residents
6. This is a motorway for the Port of Cork only (their new point)

1. Conclusively disproved in EIS. Doulas impact negligible and Rochestown has traffic reductions due to the improved interchange at Carrs Hill
2. disproved in EIS
3. disproved in EIS
4. Depending on point of view, traffic will be moved around but the general impact will be positive
5. Absolute lie we discovered this week
6. If it was only for the Port of Cork there would be no interchanges north of Ringaskiddy

Short term pain for long term gain was always going to be the case. This is not a reason to reroute the motorway via Ballinhassig. Ballinhassig isn't a wilderness and there would be disruption there too.

Regarding dust; in that instance should we suspend all construction work in Cork and get everyone to wear masks while outdoors?

The arguments against this motorway were weak before but they are now gone beyond ridiculous

And before anyone decides to raise it elsewhere, that's my opinion as a user and a resident of County Cork and Ireland, not as a moderator.