Advertisement
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

M28 - Cork to Ringaskiddy [advance works pending; 2024 start]

13941434445

Comments



  • Markcheese wrote: »
    Actually , you'd hope someone would run a carragline or ringaskiddy express ( the quicker the bus is the more frequent it can be and that'll get more passengers on to it ) , straight In the motorway ,to the city ,

    No reason why the 220x couldn't use the M28




  • Is the detailed design work completed? Google has not been my friend on this one I'm afraid.

    I was wondering specifically if anyone knows what's going on with the old railway line?
    The old RPS docs are sympathetic to the idea of preserving the corridor and using the old N28 to provide a cycle corridor, but I just can't find detailed designs anywhere.




  • Is the detailed design work completed? Google has not been my friend on this one I'm afraid.

    I was wondering specifically if anyone knows what's going on with the old railway line?
    The old RPS docs are sympathetic to the idea of preserving the corridor and using the old N28 to provide a cycle corridor, but I just can't find detailed designs anywhere.

    I hope the N28 is not just let go into disrepair. It should be realigned along with segregated walking and cycling facilities, would go along way to easing the chronic car dependancy in Carrigaline.




  • marno21 wrote: »
    MOD:

    By my reckoning it’s now 5 times the M28 Steering Group has failed in their attempts to block this project....

    You missed one. They also sought to take it to Europe.




  • I was wondering specifically if anyone knows what's going on with the old railway line?
    The old RPS docs are sympathetic to the idea of preserving the corridor and using the old N28 to provide a cycle corridor, but I just can't find detailed designs anywhere.

    I saw somewhere quite recently that the route of the old railway line is preserved with the intention of it becoming a greenway. If I can remember where I’ll let you know.


  • Advertisement


  • MOD:

    Posts that were not conformant to my mod warning earlier have been deleted, as have posts referencing the offending posts.

    This thread shall be used for the discussion of the construction of the M28 and any associated discussion. The objections are over and we need to move on. We also need to remain civil and discuss the project, not those associated with objecting to it.




  • I would also like to thank Hibernicis on thread for the immense contributions they have posted on this thread for those of us who are not of a legal mind. Many times have you come to our aid in deconstructing legal information with regards to how the case was progressing. Every day most certainly was a school day with those posts.




  • Well said Marno - Hibernicis has been great re the legal stuff!

    I believe that, as Mod, (s)he's sending the legal bill to you!! :-)




  • Hibernicis wrote: »
    I saw somewhere quite recently that the route of the old railway line is preserved with the intention of it becoming a greenway. If I can remember where I’ll let you know.

    Yes this is definitely in the RPS report for sure, at a minimum.
    Also in that report is the mention of repurposing some of the width of the legacy N28 route to provide a dedicated cycle corridor.

    This all sounds great to me, but their report was never intended to go further than the conceptual/feasibility unfortunately.




  • I remember they started surveying/working on the part of the old railway between Rafeen and the Ringaskiddy road, and I was hopeful that it was the start of it, but it appeard to grind to a halt. This was before Covid.

    I think one of the issues was that some/all of the houses in Rafeen have extended their back gardens over the line, and the council will have to get that back.

    And one other memory is seeing the discussion as to whether they would run a tunnel under the existing Ringaskiddy road, or a bridge over it.

    In any event, I do hope that they incorporate it into the works, so that I can cycle all the way to work.


  • Advertisement


  • DoubleJoe7 wrote: »
    Sad but expected news. Business interest wins out over the health and wellbeing of thousands of people. The steering group put as much as they could into it - and suffered attacks from nameless keyboard warriors over it - but there was no regard for the people of the area from TII who were determined to plough ahead whatever the consequences.

    I’m a local resident and I’m delighted about the news. This will have a very positive effect on our quality of life, and the quality of life of thousands in Carrigaline and beyond. The Steering Group never represented me.




  • I still think it’s a real shame that the link between the Moneygurney Roundabout and the new 4 arm dumbbell with access to the M28 was removed after resident complaints.

    This would have significantly improved mobility in the area especially aiding east - west transit which is sorely lacking at the moment. It would have allowed easy movement from Moneygurney to the old Carrigaline Road and would have taken pressure off Maryborough Hill.

    The replacement link road simply isn’t as good a solution. On the plus side, you will be able to exit the M28 north bound and enter the M28 southbound now from the old Carrigaline road which is a big improvement. This will prove another access point to Douglas.

    I suspect this will end up like the M7/M20 junction in Limerick. Resident complaints resulted in certain movements not being facilitated. A few years later they were back crying out for those movements to be allowed. A lot of narrow thought from residents methinks.




  • I still think it’s a real shame that the link between the Moneygurney Roundabout and the new 4 arm dumbbell with access to the M28 was removed after resident complaints.

    This would have significantly improved mobility in the area especially aiding east - west transit which is sorely lacking at the moment. It would have allowed easy movement from Moneygurney to the old Carrigaline Road and would have taken pressure off Maryborough Hill.

    The replacement link road simply isn’t as good a solution. On the plus side, you will be able to exit the M28 north bound and enter the M28 southbound now from the old Carrigaline road which is a big improvement. This will prove another access point to Douglas.

    I suspect this will end up like the M7/M20 junction in Limerick. Resident complaints resulted in certain movements not being facilitated. A few years later they were back crying out for those movements to be allowed. A lot of narrow thought from residents methinks.


    Which residents objected to that? Was it the famous ones who delayed this project or another group ?


    What I cannot get over is the retention of that existing slip road into Mount Oval, hard to believe that is acceptable on a modern day motorway.


    Is there anyway that the NTA might review this or would they have to apply for a change of planning permission ?




  • kub wrote: »
    Which residents objected to that? Was it the famous ones who delayed this project or another group ?


    What I cannot get over is the retention of that existing slip road into Mount Oval, hard to believe that is acceptable on a modern day motorway.


    Is there anyway that the NTA might review this or would they have to apply for a change of planning permission ?

    Residents in Maryborough Ridge. It would have fed onto the new roundabout at the top of Maryborough Hill. It’s an awful decision not to go ahead with it.

    It would have facilitated closing the amount Oval slip as it would have provided secondary access.




  • Residents in Maryborough Ridge. It would have fed onto the new roundabout at the top of Maryborough Hill. It’s an awful decision not to go ahead with it.

    It would have facilitated closing the amount Oval slip as it would have provided secondary access.

    The committee were allowed to turn the horse into a camel yet still cried that they weren't consulted.




  • I looked back on my old posts.

    I discussed this with an engineer at Maryborough House hotel. The reason given for the change is that it would have required traffic calming measures and the residents were against this.

    I don’t fully understand the issue here quite frankly.




  • I looked back on my old posts.

    I discussed this with an engineer at Maryborough House hotel. The reason given for the change is that it would have required traffic calming measures and the residents were against this.

    I don’t fully understand the issue here quite frankly.

    The issue was the volume of traffic. At the time Maryborough Ridge link was proposed, the location and configuration of the Carrs's Hill interchange was very different. In fact it wasn't an interchange at all, it was a roundabout** with five roads exiting/entering. One of these was the Maryborough Ridge road which would have been the main access to the M28 for all points from the east end of Passage West to the RPH with traffic routed via Coach Hill, Clarkes Hill and Maryborough Hill. (Note that the Maryborough Hill link road wasn't part of the plan at that stage, it didn't appear until after the interchange was redesigned)

    The following is the relevant section from the Public Consultation Report.
    2.8 MARYBOROUGH RIDGE

    Many public consultees noted that residents of Maryborough Ridge had purchased their homes with no knowledge or expectation that the estate road would become a through road that connected to the M28. The estate road was described as a collector road in a private residential estate to provide access in and around the estate and the selling point of ‘secluded sites‘ was one of the main reasons why they had purchased homes in the estate.

    Some noted that at the planning stage of the Maryborough Ridge Estate, there had been an intention to link the estate to the N28. However, they stated that Cork County Council had expressed the concern that the volume and speed of traffic travelling through the estate would cause segregation of the overall estate and impact on the users of the open green areas and pedestrians wishing to cross the through road. As a result, no planning permission was given for the through road.

    Public consultees questioned why a cul‐de‐sac arrangement was described as a benefit for the Mount Oval estate, where residents purchased their properties in the full knowledge of the through road, while significant traffic volumes were now proposed to go through Maryborough Ridge estate, and where residents did not have knowledge of this when purchasing their properties. They questioned what planning regulations allowed this proposal to be put forward and what rights the residents of Maryborough Ridge had to object, and how to do so.

    Many public consultees felt that, when complete, Maryborough Ridge has the potential to be a very vibrant diverse community, incorporating a nursing home, business units and mixed residential units. They noted that the estate was a higher density blend of detached, semi‐detached, townhouses/duplexes and apartment blocks, with the majority of units not having private gardens and that therefore a crucial part of the development model is the use of the shared green areas. Public consultees felt that the nature, safety and security of the estate and its’ residents would be compromised by the division of the estate with the proposed through road to the M28, leading to a negative impact on the quality of life for the residents.

    Public consultees were concerned about potential safety risks given the increased traffic volumes that would be travelling through the estate as a result of the proposed through road to the M28. Some asked for existing and projected traffic volumes pre and post construction to be provided.

    A number of public consultees were concerned that this traffic would present safety issues for pedestrians, cyclists and the elderly using the estate and its amenities. Public consultees were particularly worried that there would be a risk to children playing in the open green areas due to the proposed through traffic. Detailed drawings of all of the proposed works, including details of walls/railings, and modifications to pedestrian routes within Maryborough Ridge were requested.

    Some public consultees felt that the condition of the road would not be sufficient to act as a through road to a motorway, and that it neither has the width nor the capacity to cater for the increase in traffic. Public consultees queried what improvements would be included to address the issue of safety for residents, and what boundary walls and arrangements around the open spaces were being proposed.

    There were a number of questions with respect to the extent and nature of traffic calming measures proposed and if the impact of these traffic calming measures had been included as part of the calculation of journey times using Maryborough Ridge. Public consultees felt that, with the increased traffic through the estate, there would be tailbacks in the estate due to the slowing down of traffic both from the numerous roundabouts proposed as well as traffic calming measures and that this congestion would cause significant disruption to estate residents. Some public consultees proposed that traffic speed restrictions and speed ramps would be required as a minimum and suggested that a gated entrance/exit similar to that at Mount Oval be provided to distinguish it as a housing estate to through traffic travelling to or from the motorway.

    Public consultees were concerned that the increased volume of traffic would lead to issues of noise and air pollution and questioned what impact assessments had been done to investigate these issues. Some asked for results of any and all such assessments and asked what corrective measures would be put in place to counteract these issues. Some were concerned that the installation of noise barriers along either side of the through road would have a detrimental impact from a visual perspective and would add to the divisive nature of the through road, cutting off residents on the south side of the road from neighbours, play areas and facilities in the northern part of the estate.

    Some public consultees questioned if the proposed distributor road through Maryborough Ridge would be closer to the houses to accommodate the width of the road.

    A number of public consultees were concerned that there would be a nuisance as a result of the headlights of the increased number of cars passing through the estate at night. Others were worried that there would be an increase in the lighting in the area due to the through road and the roundabouts and requested information on the proposed lighting plan.

    A number of public consultees noted the absence of a plan for pedestrian, cycling traffic and bus‐ lane and/or bus‐stop lay‐by provision and questioned how the lack of these is in keeping with the sustainable development of the area.

    Public consultees questioned what the timeframe would be for the proposed works and what would the transitional arrangements be.

    Public consultees were concerned that the value of the homes would be negatively impacted by the proposed distributor road access to the M28.

    Public consultees expressed concerns that increased traffic due to the proposals passing their existing substandard access from Maryborough Ridge Estate to Maryborough Hill, with limited visibility, would be an increased safety risk. They queried if this exit would be improved as part of the works and if traffic lights would be considered from the one‐way exit presently from Maryborough Ridge to Maryborough Hill. This would allow safer access to turn right to access the proposed new distributor road to the M28. Some questioned whether this was the responsibility of the estate developer or of the NRA/TII or Cork County Council and asked for confirmation of this.

    Public consultees requested results of current/predictive time‐domain traffic models examining the merge from the proposed Carr’s Hill West Roundabout with the proposed M28, and any possible 100km/h to 60km/h reduction or 2 to 1 lane merge before the Bloomfield interchange.

    Some public consultees were concerned that the section of road outside Broadale would be cut‐off and therefore would become a haven for anti‐social activity. Others were concerned that the through road with access to the M28 would lead to a rise in crime and theft in the estate.

    Public consultees stated that the roundabout at Maryborough Ridge needs to be integrated as a matter of urgency to eliminate the blind bend from Garryduff Road to Maryborough Hill. However some felt that the roundabout at Maryborough Ridge is too small to accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes and that the approach roads are too narrow.

    There was concern that the roundabout would give preference to motor vehicle users over cyclists and pedestrians and some public consultees felt that this should be a signalised junction with pedestrian lights incorporated, so that residents of Maryborough Ridge can still gain access to their nearest bus stop and the facilities at Broadale.

    Some public consultees felt that the traffic coming from the Garryduff side would need to have priority on the roundabout due to heavy traffic flow from Carrigaline at rush hour and proposed that a small flyover instead of the roundabout might be more suitable.

    Public consultees noted their concern regarding the closure of certain existing internal estate roads, which they felt would make these streets cul‐de‐sacs without any designated turning areas. This would make them non‐compliant with DoEHLG Standards and incompatible with essential service deliveries such as refuse collection and fire tenders, or alternatively amenity/green areas would have to be amended to facilitate turning areas and/or barriers to prevent children running onto a busy road. They asked what alternative measures would be provided and what measures would be put in place to ensure that service deliveries, such as fire tenders and refuse collection, will not be adversely affected. Public consultees noted the omission of the entrance/access off the main distributor road to "The Oaks" residential area and felt that this entrance/access off the main distributor road should be retained as a minimum. Public consultees also noted that provision must also be included to allow access to existing residential areas and future development lands within Maryborough Ridge.

    Public consultees sought confirmation that TII will take a constructive position in relation to the future development of Maryborough Ridge and not seek to suspend/restrict or have a negative impact on the future development proposals within Maryborough Ridge.

    Public consultees felt that the through road would not provide any benefit to the Maryborough Ridge Residents as they had no direct access to the road.

    Public consultees noted that the Applewood section of the estate will effectively be cut off from the rest of the estate, along with access to the common green areas. They were also concerned that the opening of the Applewood side entrance onto the road to Hilltown will increase people trying to bypass the roundabout and will increase traffic coming into the estate.

    Public consultees were concerned that the current retaining wall beside No. 31 The Oaks would not sustain the expected volume of traffic and that there would be a risk of collapse. There was also concern about the level at which the connector road would be constructed and the impact this would have on individual houses.

    **The Carr's Hill roundabout would almost certainly have been a complete disaster. There was no way it could have coped with the volume of traffic, especially given that it was planned to close the Mount Oval off ramp and divert all that traffic to this roundabout as well. I remember talking to one of the engineer's in Maryborough Hotel in November 2015 at the initial public consultation and suggesting to him that they name the roundabout wisely as it would probably get top billing on AA Roadwatch from the day it opened to the day 10 or 15 years later when it was rebuilt as a proper interchange at enormous expense. He laughed and said that he couldn't disagree. Fortunately it was completely redesigned, still a bit quirky but a lot better.




  • The Mayor of the County of Cork has welcomed the decision by the Supreme Court to clear the way for the development of the M28 Cork to Ringaskiddy Motorway which she described as “critical both nationally and for the entire Cork region”.


    https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/arid-40237796.html




  • kub wrote: »
    Which residents objected to that? Was it the famous ones who delayed this project or another group ?

    The Steering Committee wasn't formed until after the Maryborough Ridge link was dropped.
    kub wrote: »
    What I cannot get over is the retention of that existing slip road into Mount Oval, hard to believe that is acceptable on a modern day motorway.

    Is there anyway that the NTA might review this or would they have to apply for a change of planning permission ?

    Bear in mind that that Mount Oval off ramp was completely redesigned and is being brought up to what TII deem to be an acceptable standard.




  • What will happen to the old exit to Mount Oval, will the road surface just be removed and landscaped over? It's currently a tree lined road so it would be nice to pave it instead for pedestrians and use the path already there to make a loop


  • Advertisement


  • What will happen to the old exit to Mount Oval, will the road surface just be removed and landscaped over? It's currently a tree lined road so it would be nice to pave it instead for pedestrians and use the path already there to make a loop

    The road in Mount Oval remains much as it is and continues in operation. The part that changes is exit lane off the N28, this starts much earlier (closer to the Rochestown Road exit, near the County Council Office) so that traffic travelling at speed on the N28 can switch to the exit lane and slow gradually, rather than having the break in the main carriageway before exiting as is necessary at present.




  • Hibernicis wrote: »
    The road in Mount Oval remains much as it is and continues in operation. The part that changes is exit lane off the N28, this starts much earlier (closer to the Rochestown Road exit, near the County Council Office) so that traffic travelling at speed on the N28 can switch to the exit lane and slow gradually, rather than having the break in the main carriageway before exiting as is necessary at present.

    Sorry, I might be explaining it wrong. I mean the portion of the road that will no longer used, I'm guessing the part in red below

    also, does anyone know how much widening there will be on the part of the road between the Rochestown Road bridge and the Maryborough Hill bridge? Looking at the plans, if the alignment is the same, there will be little to no widening on the southbound side while there will be some widening on the southbound side to faciliate the new lane and the divider in the centre. Just wondering how many trees will be lost, it doesn't seem like much will be lost on the northbound side except for the new Mount Oval alignment (which mostly goes through brush I believe). The southbound side will likely see the brunt of it but even then, there's loads of land left which will hopefully go undisturbed. the people living in The Fairways on maryborough Hill are probably delighted not having the slip road right next to their houses anymore and being further from the main road.




  • Sorry, I might be explaining it wrong. I mean the portion of the road that will no longer used, I'm guessing the part in red below

    I'd say it will be grassed over. I can't imagine TII wanting to attract pedestrians to a point that close to the motorway. The image below from the final drawings doesn't show anything in relation the this section (the blue line marking the existing exit is my addition, and corresponds to the section in red on your image).

    It will also be interesting to see whether the existing footpath at the rear of the 29-51 Rowan Hill is retained.

    OicyMrm.png




  • What are the chances that within 10 years of opening, the original plan gets implemented at the behest of the residents of the area?




  • Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    What are the chances that within 10 years of opening, the original plan gets implemented at the behest of the residents of the area?

    The other option would be to go a bit out the old Carrigaline road and build a link road to Maryborough Hill maybe 200m to 300m away.

    Would certainly hope that access can be provided to pedestrians and cyclists to access the old road from Maryborough Ridge. I see no reason why not.




  • Would certainly hope that access can be provided to pedestrians and cyclists to access the old road from Maryborough Ridge. I see no reason why not.

    That is certainly feasible, and will be greatly facilitated by Phase 4 of the Ballybrack Valley Cyclist and Pedestrian Route which is now at the detailed design and procurement stage. Only concern is that the Post M28 view does not clearly show the actual linkage between the path/cycle way and the current N28. However in the County Manager's report on the Phase 4 extension he did comment "It is our intention to coordinate the implementation of this current project with the M28 project should it receive planning permission"

    When it comes to fruition it will provide a superb walking and cycling route from the top of Maryborough (serving Maryborough Ridge, Broadale, and the estates off Garyduff Road with a safe and pleasant route into the heart of Douglas. The only missing link will be a connection from Mount Oval to Broadale.




  • The motorway will transform the old N28 too.

    Suspect it will incorporate cycle lanes on both sides. All banned right turns along its length will be removed and residential development along this road will be allowed.




  • Oh you dreamers! They'll get a splash of death paint. Maybe a 4m wide footpath, if they're lucky.

    Sure, the whingers and extremists and moaners will probably be looking for something absolutely outrageous and outlandish, like actual segregation or a continuous route or other mad notions. But we know better than to pander to these demands. This isn't Amsterdam, lads.




  • Will the N28 remain a national road or will it be downgraded to regional? Where exactly does the new M28 become a new build?


  • Advertisement


  • Will the N28 remain a national road or will it be downgraded to regional?

    The N route typically gets downgraded


Advertisement