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

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.