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

cros13

marno21 wrote: »

The growth in electric car usage will counter the growth in emissions from total traffic growth on the M28. The short journey from Carrigaline to Cork is also very conducive for electric cars

Short distances are not that suitable for electric vehicles. Long commutes like Cashel to Cork are better suited.
Primarily down to higher capital costs (though EVs are expected to drop below the manufacturing cost of ICE by 2025) and drastically lower running costs.
My own daily commute from Portlaoise to Dublin would be a good example of an ideal EV commute.

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

It's proposed to have this built by 2023. There isn't a hope that electric vehicles will have had enough uptake by then to counter growth in emissions from total traffic growth in any meaningful way.

It would be emissions over the decades the road is open rather than the first week's traffic that would matter, no?

By 2030 I reckon we'd be pretty close to 50% EV on the M28, not among private cars but overall. In particular a large proportion of the HGVs going to the port would have moved to electric powertrains by then (Daimler, Volvo, Scania and Tesla all have suitable HGVs on the way before 2020. BYD already have shorter range HGVs).
After labor, fuel is the largest expense for haulage operators. Excluding the taxation differences and not even taking account of much lower maintenance costs, EV-powered HGVs cost around 5-6 times less per km to run.
Electric motors are also better than diesel for cargo hauling due to greater low end torque.

There's also a substantial reduction in non-fuel particulate emissions due to EVs lower brake wear (though slightly offset by increased PM10 from tires due to increased weight, overall a substantial reduction though... particularly PM2.5).

It would even be possible to ban non-electric HGVs from the M28 and port. Have a container hub near the dunkettle interchange and transfer containers there from the port using electric yard trucks like this BYD:



Or the T9:


Container movements from the port to the hub could be handled primarily during off-peak hours practically eliminating HGV traffic at peak times on both the M28 and the existing and proposed ring roads.

marno21

Golfer50 wrote: »

Ohhhh, your negativity
Let me rephrase your question.
Did you object to the construction of the existing N28 Sli Carrigdhoun back in 1995?
Yes, I was actively engaged at the time to ensure the best possible results for myself and my neighbours. Promises were made and broken, trees were planted and cut down, predicted traffic numbers were far exceeded, etc etc

It is as a result of this extensive and bitter experience that I am not so trusting this time around.

You regularly refer to the present EIS as if it were some kind of bible and beyond reproach. Let me assure you that there were many flaws in this document. Some of these were very graphically shown today by a barrister on behalf of a Ringaskiddy resident.

Predicted traffic numbers were far exceeded - by people driving to their jobs in Ringaskiddy instead of going to Shannon to emigrate. This is something to be welcomed - that's just economic development. It's a sign of how far Cork has come on that this is going ahead. The new road has capacity for 45,000 vehicles so there won't be any exceeding this time around.

Can you explain further on the Ringaskiddy resident's barrister's claims please? I wasn't there to see so can't comment.

Golfer50 wrote: »

As you do not use the route too often you may not be aware of the frequent closures of the Cork tunnel for "maintenance". I believe the Cork tunnel closures are far more frequent than other Irish ones.
The route via Ballygarvan etc would open up a possible link to the proposed northern ring road and Limerick motorway.

I don't use the N28 often. I do use the M8, N20, N22, N25, N40 and N71 often, so I am quite familiar with the tunnel. Tunnel closures are 3 nights every quarter, with the 3rd night's closure cancelled if the work can be done in the first 2 nights. There will be no Northern Ring or M20 by the time the M28 opens, and the Kinsale Roundabout is at peak even with less priority given to N27 traffic from Airport Hill.

Golfer50 wrote: »

Almost every speaker I heard objecting to the proposed route expressed the same sentiments. Objectors to this proposal are NOT objecting to a motorway to Ringaskiddy.

So they think that the motorway will cause lung cancer and deafness but they want the people of Hilltown, Ballygarvan, Fivemilebridge and Ballinhassig to be inflicted instead? Do these people realise that the existing N28 will remain open if another route was selected?

cros13 wrote: »

Short distances are not that suitable for electric vehicles. Long commutes like Cashel to Cork are better suited.
Primarily down to higher capital costs (though EVs are expected to drop below the manufacturing cost of ICE by 2025) and drastically lower running costs.
My own daily commute from Portlaoise to Dublin would be a good example of an ideal EV commute.

I mean that the distance from Ringaskiddy/Carrigaline to Cork would suit the current era of electric vehicles, many of which will still be around when the M28 opens. The current stop start mess from Carrigaline to Cork is very inefficient for diesel vehicles in particular.

cros13

marno21 wrote: »

I mean that the distance from Ringaskiddy/Carrigaline to Cork would suit the current era of electric vehicles, many of which will still be around when the M28 opens. The current stop start mess from Carrigaline to Cork is very inefficient for diesel vehicles in particular.

Current/Near Term EVs generally have real world ranges in the 200-550km band. 181 Leaf 250km, Zoe 40 300km, Model S 500km, Model 3 LR 550km.
I doubt we'll see many more short range EVs than the 1500 currently on the road in Ireland.

Ringaskiddy/Carrigaline to Cork is better suited to small petrols than EVs for commuting at the moment. You need a decent amount of mileage to make an EV pay back.
By 2025 that will change due to lower priced EVs... but it's still the longer range commuters coming in the N22, N20, N25 and M8 that are moving to EV not people pootling around cities (as many residents of the EV forum can attest).

Anyway, ten years after the M28 opens I'd lay down €100 that the majority of vehicles on the road would be EVs. So that speaks to air quality impacts and some proportion of the road noise.

Golfer50

marno21 wrote: »

So they think that the motorway will cause lung cancer and deafness but they want the people of Hilltown, Ballygarvan, Fivemilebridge and Ballinhassig to be inflicted instead? Do these people realise that the existing N28 will remain open if another route was selected?

I'm not trying to poison anyone but an expert witness yesterday justified the present route selection by saying that the alternatives would ruin the rural landscape. Do you think that is good logic? Drive it past houses because otherwise it would have to go through fields? This is the kind of waffle I endured yesterday.

I've always said that the present N28 needs improvement. Shannonpark north to Bloomfield is a joke. This should happen even if the port traffic is diverted elsewhere. This improvement should also include giving proper protection to the residents along the route - something that's also long overdue.

marno21

Golfer50 wrote: »

I'm not trying to poison anyone but an expert witness yesterday justified the present route selection by saying that the alternatives would ruin the rural landscape. Do you think that is good logic? Drive it past houses because otherwise it would have to go through fields? This is the kind of waffle I endured yesterday.

I've always said that the present N28 needs improvement. Shannonpark north to Bloomfield is a joke. This should happen even if the port traffic is diverted elsewhere. This improvement should also include giving proper protection to the residents along the route - something that's also long overdue.

One major plus in favour of building the road along the existing N28 is that several km is already built - negating the need to acquire land and build more road.

The thing is - the motorway element is really Carrs Hill-Ringaskiddy. It's mainly an upgrade south of there and a safety upgrade north of Carrs Hill. This has lots of benefits and the 2 lanes in either direction will stop idling traffic on Carrs Hill belting out fumes. Traffic at Carrs Hill is above the capacity for the next standard of road below motorway so the upgrade makes sense - an alternative route still means the same traffic on Carrs Hill

I am in full favour of noise barriers and trees planed along the route - for both noise protection and to help with the fumes emitted. These will be installed regardless, this isn't China. Every effort will be made to protect residents near the route - as has happened with other national road schemes built in modern times.

highwaymaniac

marno21 wrote: »

Did Harrington suggest routing this via Cork Airport at the Oral Hearing today "in order to connect to another strategic infrastructure"?

Very weak argument if true

Yes something along those lines. His argumemt was that the route as proposed could not be further from strategic infrastructure because of lack of connectivity, i.e. no airport link and Bloomfield interchange not fit for purpose.

He was also at pains to stress that the proposed road is essentially a motorway solely for the benefit of the port of cork and this consisted project splitting - the M28 scheme should have been considered with the port of cork application.

Golfer50

marno21 wrote: »

Can you explain further on the Ringaskiddy resident's barrister's claims please? I wasn't there to see so can't comment.

😀
That doesn't usually stop people here!

(E&OE)The barrister was representing someone whose property will be seriously affected due to the present routing adjacent to Ringaskiddy. This includes a CPO up to the property, the closing of the road past the house, building a pedestrian underpass etc. The area is further complicated by the presence of an underground gas pipeline and two separate electric lines. The person's experts pointed out how the EIS didn't address the complex issues in the area or how they would be dealt with and also how one of the photo montages in the EIS "misrepresented" the actual and projected views from the property.

marno21

highwaymaniac wrote: »

Yes something along those lines. His argumemt was that the route as proposed could not be further from strategic infrastructure because of lack of connectivity, i.e. no airport link and Bloomfield interchange not fit for purpose.

He was also at pains to stress that the proposed road is essentially a motorway solely for the benefit of the port of cork and this consisted project splitting - the M28 scheme should have been considered with the port of cork application.

Thanks for your information.

Bloomfield Interchange is the highest capacity interchange in Cork at present - and the only one that isn't a total mess. It's the one interchange in Cork that was planned right from day 1 - if anything it was overspecced at the time in Cork terms.

I can't think of any reason why it's important to connect, at considerable expense, a port to an airport that at present has 0 scheduled cargo flights.

It's for the benefit of Cork, Douglas, Rochestown, Maryborough, Carrigaline, Shanbally, Ringaskiddy and the surrounding areas. It's the exact same road as propsoed before only with blue signs. Maybe they would've been better off planning a dual carriageway and changing the signs after like they did with the M11 Arklow-Rathnew.

Ludo

marno21 wrote: »

- an alternative route still means the same traffic on Carrs Hill

This is not necessarily true. There are plenty of people working on the western side of the city and Ballincollig who come from Carrigaline in the mornings and they would use a new route if it was available. I know plenty who take back roads
to do this already to avoid the south ring. Traffic to UCC and CIT would also potentially benefit from a different route and remove this traffic from the current route.

marno21

Golfer50 wrote: »

😀
That doesn't usually stop people here!

(E&OE)The barrister was representing someone whose property will be seriously affected due to the present routing adjacent to Ringaskiddy. This includes a CPO up to the property, the closing of the road past the house, building a pedestrian underpass etc. The area is further complicated by the presence of an underground gas pipeline and two separate electric lines. The person's experts pointed out how the EIS didn't address the complex issues in the area or how they would be dealt with and also how one of the photo montages in the EIS "misrepresented" the actual and projected views from the property.

(Not targeted at you)

This means that the individual in question doesn't like the EIS because it doesn't directly address their personal inconvenience with the scheme - no matter where this is built there will always be a small amount of people with issues because the new road will cut through their land or cut off a road. Given where this location is it'll happen Carrs Hill or no Carrs Hill. There's similar issues with every scheme but the small pain for a few people is at expense for the major gain in safety and improved transit times.

marno21

Ludo wrote: »

This is not necessarily true. There are plenty of people working on the western side of the city and Ballincollig who come from Carrigaline in the mornings and they would use a new route if it was available. I know plenty who take back roads
to do this already to avoid the south ring. Traffic to UCC and CIT would also potentially benefit from a different route and remove this traffic from the current route.

A lot of the trucks, which are going from the Dunkettle Interchange (M8/N25/N20) will still use the existing route.

The main issue with an alternative route is where it'll tie into the N40 South Ring and the existing route network. From Ballincollig to Bloomfield there is a major lack of areas to tie this in. In future, if and when the M71 is built this will be a major headache for the planners.

Golfer50

marno21 wrote: »

I am in full favour of noise barriers and trees planed along the route - for both noise protection and to help with the fumes emitted. These will be installed regardless, this isn't China. Every effort will be made to protect residents near the route - as has happened with other national road schemes built in modern times.

It may not be . . but I have reems of correspondence regarding the REMOVAL of the dense planting of trees which protected us from the N28 for years. The manner of their removal on "safety" grounds would be worthy of NK. Trying to get any satisfaction or even honest and timely information from the very same CCC or TII was just a frustration. So having waited 20yrs for our trees to grow etc etc. . . . I don't have 20 yrs left to go through all that again.
Again, as a result of bitter on the ground experience, I take landscaping promises with a pinch of salt and the noise fence . . sorry, barrier . .planned in my area will not be able to manage the existing or projected noise levels . . .as admitted in the EIS

highwaymaniac

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I didn't get a chance to read over any of the detail regarding the meeting nor could i attend due to work.

Ger Harrington is only trying to frighten people into getting his own way plus to make a name for himself, is he rubbing shoulders with Jerry Buttimer for a potential future career in politics?

As for Buttimer, was he at the Ambassador Hotel?

Didn't see Buttimer, Seamus McGrath did speak though - in short current proposal unacceptable, back to drawing board to consider alternatives. Big bro Michael intends to speak this friday or friday week if he can get away from his important business in the Dáil!

highwaymaniac

Golfer50 wrote: »

😀
That doesn't usually stop people here!

(E&OE)The barrister was representing someone whose property will be seriously affected due to the present routing adjacent to Ringaskiddy. This includes a CPO up to the property, the closing of the road past the house, building a pedestrian underpass etc. The area is further complicated by the presence of an underground gas pipeline and two separate electric lines. The person's experts pointed out how the EIS didn't address the complex issues in the area or how they would be dealt with and also how one of the photo montages in the EIS "misrepresented" the actual and projected views from the property.

marno21 wrote: »

(Not targeted at you)

This means that the individual in question doesn't like the EIS because it doesn't directly address their personal inconvenience with the scheme - no matter where this is built there will always be a small amount of people with issues because the new road will cut through their land or cut off a road. Given where this location is it'll happen Carrs Hill or no Carrs Hill. There's similar issues with every scheme but the small pain for a few people is at expense for the major gain in safety and improved transit times.

The misrepresentation is that the existing and proposed photomontage is missing a large tower pylon which had been cropped out of the existing view - the bottom of the pylon was still visible though! I'm sure they will clarify it tomorrow, the landowner's planner and landscape architect claimed it threw the validity of the whole landscape and visual assessment in the EIS into question! The landscape architect was completely out of his depth when dealing with the services not surprising given his background. Obviously didn't read the material assets chapter.

The landowner hired a barrister, planner and landscape architect to essentially come up with a nimby objection and got very poor return for his money in my view. The obvious argument here would have been to attack the change in alignment and cross section (from dual to Type 1 single) from the previous application in 2008 on the basis that it does not meet objectives of the scheme. Lack of dual c/w to the port is major flaw in my view. Not even a climbing lane coming out of the port! An option that does not meet the objectives of the scheme should not be brought forward and assessed against viable options in the EIS, otherwise environmental concerns will always win out as is the case here.

boardsuser1

highwaymaniac wrote: »

Didn't see Buttimer, Seamus McGrath did speak though - in short current proposal unacceptable, back to drawing board to consider alternatives. Big bro Michael intends to speak this friday or friday week if he can get away from his important business in the Dáil!

I tweeted Buttimer last night and he replied, i posted it last night on this thread,he says he isn't opposed to it.

These politicians are only trying to garner support for the next election to become TD's i suspect, not one of them,Boyle,Buttimer,McGrath Jnr are TD's.

What is Michael McGrath's view on it?

You'd think that with Micheal Martin also in South Central he'd bring McGrath home with him in any election.

The TD's for the area in general are very very quiet.

marno21

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I tweeted Buttimer last night and he replied, i posted it last night on this thread,he says he isn't opposed to it.

These politicians are only trying to garner support for the next election to become TD's i suspect, not one of them,Boyle,Buttimer,McGrath Jnr are TD's.

What is Michael McGrath's view on it?

You'd think that with Micheal Martin also in South Central he'd bring McGrath home with him in any election.

The TD's for the area in general are very very quiet.

TDs in the area are sitting on the fence. They know how important this is for Cork but at the same time don't want to lose votes

Buttimer is looking for cheap votes.

highwaymaniac

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I tweeted Buttimer last night and he replied, i posted it last night on this thread,he says he isn't opposed to it.

These politicians are only trying to garner support for the next election to become TD's i suspect, not one of them,Boyle,Buttimer,McGrath Jnr are TD's.

What is Michael McGrath's view on it?

You'd think that with Micheal Martin also in South Central he'd bring McGrath home with him in any election.

The TD's for the area in general are very very quiet.

Having listened to Buttimer on 96fm I think he was being deliberately vague in his reply, i.e. not opposed just don't agree with current route!.

I agree, that was why I was surprised to hear that Michael McGrath would be speaking. Seamus said they put in a joint written submission to ABP. Will be interesting to see what he says I'd guess similar to Seamus but maybe a bit more measured.

marno21

highwaymaniac wrote: »

Having listened to Buttimer on 96fm I think he was being deliberately vague in his reply, i.e. not opposed just don't agree with current route!.

I agree, that was why I was surprised to hear that Michael McGrath would be speaking. Seamus said they put in a joint written submission to ABP. Will be interesting to see what he says I'd guess similar to Seamus but maybe a bit more measured.

When was Buttimer on 96FM?

boardsuser1

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

From 96FM on 24/10/2017.

Listen from 27 minutes onwards, i'd be interested in the opinions of what Buttimer said in this piece.

https://soundcloud.com/opinionline96/the-opinion-line-2017-10-24-your-free-daily-podcast-is-here?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook

marno21 wrote: »

When was Buttimer on 96FM?

Probably means this ^^^^^

Limerick74

highwaymaniac wrote: »

The misrepresentation is that the existing and proposed photomontage is missing a large tower pylon which had been cropped out of the existing view - the bottom of the pylon was still visible though! I'm sure they will clarify it tomorrow, the landowner's planner and landscape architect claimed it threw the validity of the whole landscape and visual assessment in the EIS into question! The landscape architect was completely out of his depth when dealing with the services not surprising given his background. Obviously didn't read the material assets chapter.

The landowner hired a barrister, planner and landscape architect to essentially come up with a nimby objection and got very poor return for his money in my view. The obvious argument here would have been to attack the change in alignment and cross section (from dual to Type 1 single) from the previous application in 2008 on the basis that it does not meet objectives of the scheme. Lack of dual c/w to the port is major flaw in my view. Not even a climbing lane coming out of the port! An option that does not meet the objectives of the scheme should not be brought forward and assessed against viable options in the EIS, otherwise environmental concerns will always win out as is the case here.

The first photo shown was taken at winter when the tree in front of the pylon was without foliage and you could see the pylon. The second Photo from the EIS was taken when the tree’s foliage was full and blocking part of the pylon. The photos were also taken at slightly different locations thus further exaggerating the difference. The barrister, planner & landscape architect did not do the homeowner any favors and wasted some money IMO.

boardsuser1

Limerick74 wrote: »

The first photo shown was taken at winter when the tree in front of the pylon was without foliage and you could see the pylon. The second Photo from the EIS was taken when the tree’s foliage was full and blocking part of the pylon. The photos were also taken at slightly different locations thus further exaggerating the difference. The barrister, planner & landscape architect did not do the homeowner any favors and wasted some money IMO.

It's like anything else really, if you employ somebody then they have to take your instructions, that is all the Barrister,planner and landscaper were doing here.

Harrington is clutching at straws.

AugustusMinimus

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

Limerick74 wrote: »

The first photo shown was taken at winter when the tree in front of the pylon was without foliage and you could see the pylon. The second Photo from the EIS was taken when the tree’s foliage was full and blocking part of the pylon. The photos were also taken at slightly different locations thus further exaggerating the difference. The barrister, planner & landscape architect did not do the homeowner any favors and wasted some money IMO.

It's like anything else really, if you employ somebody then they have to take your instructions, that is all the Barrister,planner and landscaper were doing here.

Harrington is clutching at straws.

Harrington saying that Bloomfield couldn’t handle the traffic yet Kinsale Roundabout could is the worst comment of all. Comical Ali stuff.

highwaymaniac

Limerick74 wrote: »

The first photo shown was taken at winter when the tree in front of the pylon was without foliage and you could see the pylon. The second Photo from the EIS was taken when the tree’s foliage was full and blocking part of the pylon. The photos were also taken at slightly different locations thus further exaggerating the difference. The barrister, planner & landscape architect did not do the homeowner any favors and wasted some money IMO.

No it definitely has been removed, overhead lines have been removed too.

Golfer50

Limerick74 wrote: »

The first photo shown was taken at winter when the tree in front of the pylon was without foliage and you could see the pylon. The second Photo from the EIS was taken when the tree’s foliage was full and blocking part of the pylon. The photos were also taken at slightly different locations thus further exaggerating the difference. The barrister, planner & landscape architect did not do the homeowner any favors and wasted some money IMO.

Sorry, either I'm blind or you are 100% wrong here. The wrong photo may have been inserted in error in the EIS but it was not an accurate depiction.

Golfer50

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

It's like anything else really, if you employ somebody then they have to take your instructions, that is all the Barrister,planner and landscaper were doing here.

Harrington is clutching at straws.

Eh???
This barrister and landscaper were NOT employed by Ger Harrington or anyone connected to the Steering Group. But please dont let that get in the way of fair comment . . .

Ludo

From glancing at the EIS it appears to say that Coach Hill will have a 86% increase in traffic between 7 and 8 am every day.Lots of other increases on Coach Hill at various times of the day. Errmm...I may have asked this before but are there any plans to deal with that as part of this scheme? Such as widen it to allow 2 cars to pass and provide a footpath. Ya know, basic stuff like that before almost doubling the traffic.

boardsuser1

A response from Dan Boyle on the M28

https://twitter.com/sendboyle/status/928564965124067328

Ludo

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

A response from Dan Boyle on the M28

https://twitter.com/sendboyle/status/928564965124067328

A very reasonable and sensible objection in fairness.

marno21

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

A response from Dan Boyle on the M28

https://twitter.com/sendboyle/status/928564965124067328

A rail link to a port in a country with 3 rail connected ports and minuscule rail freight demand

Connecting a port to an airport with no cargo flights instead and dragging tens of thousands miles out of the way for this "strategic connection".

snotboogie

Ludo wrote: »

From glancing at the EIS it appears to say that Coach Hill will have a 86% increase in traffic between 7 and 8 am every day.Lots of other increases on Coach Hill at various times of the day. Errmm...I may have asked this before but are there any plans to deal with that as part of this scheme? Such as widen it to allow 2 cars to pass and  provide a footpath. Ya know, basic stuff like that before almost doubling the traffic.

Its lined with houses most of the way up, there isn't space to widen it.