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

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.

Golfer50

marno21 wrote: »

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

It is really about perspective.

6. I believe YOU stated previously that road improvement is to be a motorway because of the core port designation . . .therefore a motorway for the port? yes?

5. I'm not privy to what was said prior to the publication of the EIS but anyone reading the figures for noise etc can hardly call this a positive environmental impact.

4. The changing of the Rochestown exit to a signalised one will undoubtedly cause problems. At the moment there are big queues to exit at peak times, often clogging the lane back to N40east/west. This blockage is not addressed at all in the plans . . . thee won't be a free flow of traffic from Jack Lynch Tunnel to Ringaskiddy
Traffic from Passage is already severely hampered in this area and I can only see the addition of traffic lights at Clarke Hill and Rochestown off ramp exacerbating this. Further housing plans near Rochestown Monastery will only lead to further congestion.
If Douglas bound traffic does not exit at this often clogged Rochestown exit, the other option is the Carrs Hill Interchange and then using Marlborough hill to travel to Douglas. This leads to the Fingerpost junction which is already at breaking point at many times of the day and especially the weekends.

(3. Must admit I didn't look into this yet)

2. Read the TII's own design goals - 60dB . . . but upped to double that for this development . . because the 60 is already exceeded at present! Read the WHO guidelines, read the EU guidelines . . all far exceeded here - FACT

1. The traffic management around Douglas is already so finely poised that any small tweak can cause massive congestion . . . things such as Fridays, or even Saturdays, or a wet day etc etc . From reading much of the EIS I don't believe this will change.

You did state lately that you are not a user of the N28 at present and so I have to take it that neither are you familiar with the traffic flows in the area in the surrounding hinterland. I am.

Luckily all the postings here will not be taken into account when ABPleanala looks at this. As someone stated at the recent meeting, we all want to see the Port develop and have better traffic flow from Carrigaline but we have only one chance to get the infrastructure right for us and the generations ahead. This route is the easiest for TII but surely not the best given all the limitations.

Oh, and this being an EU funded development where's the rail?

" . . .in 2011, the Commission set a target of shifting as much as 30 % of road freight transported over distances greater than 300 km to other modes of transport such as rail or waterborne transport by 2030, and more than 50 % by 2050." 2016 Report, European Court of Auditors

The M28 is a development of the NORTH SEA - MEDITERRANEAN corridor which in Ireland connects Belfast to Cork Port - 433 KLMs, something ABP choose to ignore in its Port of Cork decision this time around.

Oh well, lets hope they make a more favourable judgement this time.

AugustusMinimus

Golfer 50.

One of the big purposes of the new Carr's Hill Interchange is to allow full access for the Old Carrigaline Road to the M28 and of course the N40.

The plan is also to build a bridge from Grange to the Old Carrigaline Road over the stream.

The overall point is to take huge volumes of traffic out of Douglas West coming down from Grange and Donnybrook who have to go through Douglas at present.

On the Fingerpost. If you come off at Carrs Hill in future to access to Douglas, you will almost certainly use the Old Carrigaline Road. This will allow you access to that future bridge. You can also turn left into the centre of Douglas before the fingerpost or the next left after that again before the fingerpost.

In essence, accessing Douglas from the N28 side will no longer have to involve the Fingerpost. The EIS envisages a reduction in traffic on both the Rochestown Road and the Fingerpost.

Finally, signalising both the Rochestown and Fingerpost roundabouts have nothing to do with the M28 and will go ahead regardless of the M28.

Golfer50

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

The plan is also to build a bridge from Grange to the Old Carrigaline Road over the stream . . . .

. . .Finally, signalising both the Rochestown and Fingerpost roundabouts have nothing to do with the M28 and will go ahead regardless of the M28.

What page of EIS is this bridge please?
Signalising the Rochestown Road is in the EIS and is therefore to do with M28

Ludo

Golfer50 wrote: »

What page of EIS is this bridge please?
Signalising the Rochestown Road is in the EIS and is therefore to do with M28

That bridge is never gonna happen...and certainly not as part of the M28 build so not relevant at all.

The report also makes bad reading for Coach Hill...+76.5% increase mentioned in one section. But no sign of a road improvement which is already needed now without increasing it as the report says it will.

Kevwoody

Golfer50 wrote: »

What page of EIS is this bridge please?
Signalising the Rochestown Road is in the EIS and is therefore to do with M28

The point he's making is that it will go ahead regardless of the M28 being done.

marno21

Golfer50 wrote: »

It is really about perspective.

6. I believe YOU stated previously that road improvement is to be a motorway because of the core port designation . . .therefore a motorway for the port? yes?

It's being built as motorway simply because it's an EU TEN-T Core route. It's a Core route because of the port. If there was no port/TEN-T rule it would be built as HQ dual carraigeway.

If it was a "port motorway" it would have 0 junctions between the Port and the N40. It has 7. Therefore it's a motorway for the Port, Rochestown, Maryborough, Douglas (via Carrs Hill), Carrigaline, Shanbally, Ringaskiddy and Barnhely.

4. The changing of the Rochestown exit to a signalised one will undoubtedly cause problems. At the moment there are big queues to exit at peak times, often clogging the lane back to N40east/west. This blockage is not addressed at all in the plans . . . thee won't be a free flow of traffic from Jack Lynch Tunnel to Ringaskiddy
Traffic from Passage is already severely hampered in this area and I can only see the addition of traffic lights at Clarke Hill and Rochestown off ramp exacerbating this. Further housing plans near Rochestown Monastery will only lead to further congestion.
If Douglas bound traffic does not exit at this often clogged Rochestown exit, the other option is the Carrs Hill Interchange and then using Marlborough hill to travel to Douglas. This leads to the Fingerpost junction which is already at breaking point at many times of the day and especially the weekends.

At present, traffic beginning on the N28 at Bloomfield has two opportunities to exit the N28 at Douglas. Rochestown/R610 and the Maryborough slip. Now it has three via a full grade seperated interchange at Carrs Hill. This has the added benefit of removing a rat run via the Maryborough off slip and providing full access to the ex R609/Carrigaline Road and avoiding the Rochestown congestion. Further link roads can be added to the Carrs Hill interchange to improve access to Douglas.

2. Read the TII's own design goals - 60dB . . . but upped to double that for this development . . because the 60 is already exceeded at present! Read the WHO guidelines, read the EU guidelines . . all far exceeded here - FACT

Were the M28 to not go ahead the existing N28/Sli Carrigdhoun will still exist between Carrs Hill and the N40. So the noise will remain M28 or no M28.

Quite a few people living in the area bought their houses aware of the existince of the N28 which has been there since 1995. If noise is such an issue then it's not a good idea to live in an urban/semi urban area where noise is a reality.

1. The traffic management around Douglas is already so finely poised that any small tweak can cause massive congestion . . . things such as Fridays, or even Saturdays, or a wet day etc etc . From reading much of the EIS I don't believe this will change.

Hence TII trying their best here to improve things. The rest of the improvements, with local and regional roads, is a matter for the council to solve.

You did state lately that you are not a user of the N28 at present and so I have to take it that neither are you familiar with the traffic flows in the area in the surrounding hinterland. I am.

I'm not a regular user of the N28 but the team working on the scheme on behalf of TII will have studied them quite a lot and taken all these factors into account when choosing the design unveiled in late 2015. The M28 wasn't designed using crayons and a map.

Luckily all the postings here will not be taken into account when ABPleanala looks at this. As someone stated at the recent meeting, we all want to see the Port develop and have better traffic flow from Carrigaline but we have only one chance to get the infrastructure right for us and the generations ahead. This route is the easiest for TII but surely not the best given all the limitations.

What's the alternative route? Via Ballinhassig or the Airport? Long circuitous routes burning a lot more diesel being suggested by people so concerned about pollution? Millions extra spent on a route no one will use while the existing N28 will reach breaking point? TII did a route selection process before we got to this stage and the only viable route is via the route chosen. This is all in the EIS if you want to have a look.

Oh, and this being an EU funded development where's the rail?

" . . .in 2011, the Commission set a target of shifting as much as 30 % of road freight transported over distances greater than 300 km to other modes of transport such as rail or waterborne transport by 2030, and more than 50 % by 2050." 2016 Report, European Court of Auditors

The M28 is a development of the NORTH SEA - MEDITERRANEAN corridor which in Ireland connects Belfast to Cork Port - 433 KLMs, something ABP choose to ignore in its Port of Cork decision this time around.

Oh well, lets hope they make a more favourable judgement this time.

The port at Tivoli is rail connected and is generally unused. The terrain between Ringaskiddy and the rail network at either Cobh or Cork city is difficult and would require tunnelling, perhaps ruling out the project on cost viability grounds.

A rail link between Ringaskiddy and Cork doesn't solve the fact that 29,000 cars and growing use the N28 on a road capable of comfortably handling less than 10,000 daily.

Golfer50

marno21 wrote: »

The port at Tivoli is rail connected and is generally unused. The terrain between Ringaskiddy and the rail network at either Cobh or Cork city is difficult and would require tunnelling, perhaps ruling out the project on cost viability grounds.

Agreed, but I was merely making the point that once again Ireland needs a derogation because we are road obsessed.

marno21 wrote: »

If it was a "port motorway" it would have 0 junctions between the Port and the N40. It has 7. Therefore it's a motorway for the Port, Rochestown, Maryborough, Douglas (via Carrs Hill), Carrigaline, Shanbally, Ringaskiddy and Barnhely.

So you are trying to make a point that a port motorway is more than a motorway to a port? I don't honestly know of any motorway that doesn't have junctions. The proposed M28 will of course have junctions because its piggy backing and taking the existing road route. . . . .

marno21 wrote: »

At present, traffic beginning on the N28 at Bloomfield has two opportunities to exit the N28 at Douglas. Rochestown/R610 and the Maryborough slip. Now it has three via a full grade seperated interchange at Carrs Hill. This has the added benefit of removing a rat run via the Maryborough off slip and providing full access to the ex R609/Carrigaline Road and avoiding the Rochestown congestion. Further link roads can be added to the Carrs Hill interchange to improve access to Douglas.

At present traffic southbound from Bloomfield has one option for Douglas, the Rochestown/R610.
The only slip road is to Mount Oval and not a route for Douglas bound traffic.
I don't understand your point about a Maryborough rat run, perhaps you are confusing north and south bound traffic?
Your proposition that Carrs Hill interchange will give another route to Douglas for south bound traffic would mean an addition of approximately 2.5 kms to your journey from Bloomfield. I don't think people will do that.

marno21 wrote: »

The M28 wasn't designed using crayons and a map.

I believe they choose the route because there was a pre existing road in the northern section to work with. . . but squeezing a motorway with such heavy predicted traffic, through what is a heavily populated area, adding to the noise and nuisance already present (fact), and culminating in a single carriageway towards the Jack Lynch Tunnel at Bloomfield is hardly going to win a design award in my opinion.

marno21 wrote: »

Quite a few people living in the area bought their houses aware of the existince of the N28 which has been there since 1995. If noise is such an issue then it's not a good idea to live in an urban/semi urban area where noise is a reality.

The noise when the original road was planned and built (I was here) and the noise reality now are vastly different. You cannot say that just because there is noise here already, people should suck it up. As I pointed out previously, present noise far exceeds TII's targets for a new build and the EIS admits that this route means they cannot do anything to achieve levels even near their own targets! That can't be right.

Indeed, the methodologies used in this EIS to graph noise levels north of the Rochestown Road fall well short in my opinion - a point I'll be making strongly in my submission!

tipperary

Had a look through the EIS, the lack of an upgrade to Bloomfield for the M28 - N40 eastbound traffic seems to result in fairly substantial queueing - average 8am to 9am journey time estimated at 6.3 minutes in 2035, compared with 1.8 minutes in the 'do nothing' scenario.
Curious, is there a fee associated with making a submission to ABP on the EIS? No refernce to any fee on the N28 website.

Limerick74

tipperary wrote: »

Had a look through the EIS, the lack of an upgrade to Bloomfield for the M28 - N40 eastbound traffic seems to result in fairly substantial queueing - average 8am to 9am journey time estimated at 6.3 minutes in 2035, compared with 1.8 minutes in the 'do nothing' scenario.
Curious, is there a fee associated with making a submission to ABP on the EIS? No refernce to any fee on the N28 website.

€50 to make a submission see http://www.pleanala.ie/about/Fees/Fees-Guide%202011-EN%202016.pdf

marno21

tipperary wrote: »

Had a look through the EIS, the lack of an upgrade to Bloomfield for the M28 - N40 eastbound traffic seems to result in fairly substantial queueing - average 8am to 9am journey time estimated at 6.3 minutes in 2035, compared with 1.8 minutes in the 'do nothing' scenario.
Curious, is there a fee associated with making a submission to ABP on the EIS? No refernce to any fee on the N28 website.

The problem is the lack of general capacity and potential for upgrades along the entire South Ring from the Kinsale Rd roundabout to the Dunkettle Interchange. The Douglas flyover (J8-J9) and the Jack Lynch Tunnel from J10-J11 will always have to remain 2 lane and thus will be massive chokepoints along the route, especially when Dunkettle is upgraded. The degrading of journey times is likely due to this and not to do with the M28 itself. The only cure is routing end to end traffic around the North Ring when opened and improving public transport especially considering there is a decent rail link out the N20 and N25 corridors and the issue just being the atrocious links within the city itself.

marno21

Golfer50 wrote: »

Agreed, but I was merely making the point that once again Ireland needs a derogation because we are road obsessed.

In most other countries, such motorways as this are built with years and are no longer topics of discussion. It's 2017 and we don't have a motorway between our 2nd and 3rd cities, and the road from the 2nd city to a busy port and industrial area carrying 29,000 vehicles daily is a glorified boreen completely unsuitable.

Given its length, there are a lot of N28 journeys that could be made via alternative means but the Port and industrial areas do warrant a significant road upgrade. Carrigaline commuting wouldn't be a good case for building this. Kinsale commuters don't exactly have a decent road either, Carrigaline is just lucky it's on the road to the Port.

So you are trying to make a point that a port motorway is more than a motorway to a port? I don't honestly know of any motorway that doesn't have junctions. The proposed M28 will of course have junctions because its piggy backing and taking the existing road route. . . . .

Nothing stopping them from shutting most of those junctions if it was a Port motorway. The fact that there is a slip road to a housing estate means this is more than a Port motorway. If there was no Port it would be the same just without the blue signs.

At present traffic southbound from Bloomfield has one option for Douglas, the Rochestown/R610.
The only slip road is to Mount Oval and not a route for Douglas bound traffic.
I don't understand your point about a Maryborough rat run, perhaps you are confusing north and south bound traffic?
Your proposition that Carrs Hill interchange will give another route to Douglas for south bound traffic would mean an addition of approximately 2.5 kms to your journey from Bloomfield. I don't think people will do that.

Apologies, I didn't mean Douglas itself, but there could be traffic using the Mount Oval slip as a rat run to access Rochestown etc. if there's significant queueing on the R610 sliproad. The Mount Oval slip really shouldn't have been built in the first place, it certainly wouldn't get past TII these days.

People will add 2.5km to their journey if it's a faster route. The quickest route to most places would be via the city but people still use the South Ring to navigate the metro area.

I believe they choose the route because there was a pre existing road in the northern section to work with. . . but squeezing a motorway with such heavy predicted traffic, through what is a heavily populated area, adding to the noise and nuisance already present (fact), and culminating in a single carriageway towards the Jack Lynch Tunnel at Bloomfield is hardly going to win a design award in my opinion.

The existing route is the route that would overall be the most efficient and effective. There is very little space along the existing N40 to add another freeflow junction and the Kinsale Road and Bandon Road junctions are clogged enough as is. The existence of the freeflow Bloomfield Trumpet Interchange also is a significant plus in utilising the existing N28 roadbed.

While people in the area may want it routed via the N27 or N71 realisitically these ideas are impractical and wouldn't solve any of the issues on the N28.

The single carraigeway is being upgraded, this will be DC all the way to the N40.

Cork is a heavily populated area. There is no way to route it through wilderness considering where it has to go.

The noise when the original road was planned and built (I was here) and the noise reality now are vastly different. You cannot say that just because there is noise here already, people should suck it up. As I pointed out previously, present noise far exceeds TII's targets for a new build and the EIS admits that this route means they cannot do anything to achieve levels even near their own targets! That can't be right.

Indeed, the methodologies used in this EIS to graph noise levels north of the Rochestown Road fall well short in my opinion - a point I'll be making strongly in my submission!

I'm not just saying you should suck it up. But if the M28 didn't go ahead, they won't be covering the existing N28 in grass and returning it to the wild. The existing noise will remain. The limit will remain 100km/h so there will be no increase in noise that way and there'll be less noise of people sitting in traffic and beeping the horn at each other trying to fight their way down the hill onto the mess that is the N40 every morning.

Carawaystick

Is there any cycling infrastructure being proposed as part of this?

marno21

Carawaystick wrote: »

Is there any cycling infrastructure being proposed as part of this?

http://www.n28cork-ringaskiddy.com/EIS/vol2/Chapter%203%20-%20Description%20of%20the%20Proposed%20Road%20Development.pdf

tipperary

marno21 wrote: »

The problem is the lack of general capacity and potential for upgrades along the entire South Ring from the Kinsale Rd roundabout to the Dunkettle Interchange. The Douglas flyover (J8-J9) and the Jack Lynch Tunnel from J10-J11 will always have to remain 2 lane and thus will be massive chokepoints along the route, especially when Dunkettle is upgraded. The degrading of journey times is likely due to this and not to do with the M28 itself. The only cure is routing end to end traffic around the North Ring when opened and improving public transport especially considering there is a decent rail link out the N20 and N25 corridors and the issue just being the atrocious links within the city itself.

Agreed there are plenty other choke points on the road for which the North Ring is the only feasible solution, but I often see a backup on this part of the interchange even when there is no queueing on the N40. The junction is sometimes operating beyond capacity as it is, a problem that will become exacerbated with the projected increase in traffic using the junction - which is reflected in the journey times quoted in the EIS. Would be interesting to see what the impact of this many vehicles queuing for over 6 minutes will be in terms of queue lengths, and associated impacts on other junctions on the road, but unfortunately the relevant appendix to the EIS is not included on the website.

AugustusMinimus

I'd imagine that given capacity, the Bloomfield interchange is probably the best placed junction to receive traffic compared to say Kinsale or the Bandon Roundabouts which couldn't handle extra traffic.

billyduk

Carawaystick wrote: »

Is there any cycling infrastructure being proposed as part of this?

It's illegal to cycle on a motorway so no. It will probably be less hazardous to cycle on the N28 Carrs Hill down through Douglas (where there are cycle lanes to the city) once the M28 is built.

The Cork CoCo are also upgrading the current greenway from Passage to the city (which runs along along the old railway line from the city though Blackrock, Mahon, Rochestown and Passage) and extending it to Crosshaven via Monkstown, Rafeen and Carrigaline. That will be an excellent cycle/walking 25km route.

billyduk

As a resident of Rochestown, I welcome the motorway. I've also never had the steering group knock on my door so I have no idea how they can claim to represent me.

The main congestion on the Rochestown exit is caused by Traffic coming from the Rochestown road (Douglas side) and cars stopping at the end of Clarkes Hill to turn right.

Signalling the junction at the end of the exit ramp will enable this to be managed appropriately.

Putting lights and a dual lane approaching the end of Clarkes Hill from the Douglas side is just common sense. This will free traffic up in that area during evening peak times.

The removal of the Broadale entrance to the N28/M28 is a non issue as the new Junction further south will be of a better standard and serve the people of Maryborough hill and Garryduff better than the existing on ramp.

Those claiming that the traffic coming from Ringaskiddy/Shanbally is minimal obviously don't frequent that road. I have to go from Rochestown to Carrigaline frequently and trying to get on to the N28 at Rafeen is a joke. This will only get worse with the introduction of increased port traffic, not to mention the Janeville development in Carrigaline.

DylanGLC

Hopefully this can get planning permission in November(!!!). When would construction start, late 2018?

marno21

DylanGLC wrote: »

Hopefully this can get planning permission in November(!!!). When would construction start, late 2018?

Is it confirmed that ABP will be ruling in November? Construction is likely to start around 2020 given the current form of dripfeeding the funding to advance civil works on these projects.

The N22 Macroom Bypass was given planning in 2015 and will likely start in 2019. The same with the N4 Collooney-Castlebaldwin being greenlit in 2014 and starting in 2019 also.

The 8 projects with planning in the Capital Plan will likely eat up construction funding through to 2020.

boardsuser1

marno21 wrote: »

Is it confirmed that ABP will be ruling in November? Construction is likely to start around 2020 given the current form of dripfeeding the funding to advance civil works on these projects.

The N22 Macroom Bypass was given planning in 2015 and will likely start in 2019. The same with the N4 Collooney-Castlebaldwin being greenlit in 2014 and starting in 2019 also.

The 8 projects with planning in the Capital Plan will likely eat up construction funding through to 2020.

Is there another thread for this?

They have been talking about this bypass for over 20 years now.

What will the routing of it be?