marno21 wrote: » This thread is to be used for all discussion as to why the M28 scheme should not be built.
marno21 wrote: » Where along the route do you live, is it between the South Ring Rd and Carrs Hill or between Carrs Hill and Ringaskiddy? If the latter, the new route will be built further away from your house. The TII will also by law have to erect soundproof barriers between you and the road so you will hear very little. If you live along the section of the N28 that was built in 1995 between Carrs Hill and the N40 South Ring, then you will have the barriers AND you will have major traffic relief in your area by the upgrading of the substandard road network. This is pure NIMBYism. They're not going building the road through your back garden, if they were your house would have been CPOd. The existing N28 is unsafe and a massive drain on the economy of Cork. Also, it's your NIMBY-esqure plans being shot down. I'm not advocating assassination of the M28 Steering Group (yet).
marno21 wrote: » Spot on. I haven't seen any reason for this meeting. There has been no further updates recently for these NIMBYs to discuss
Kevwoody wrote: » I think it's unfair of you to attack Marno 21, just because he is a mod doesn't mean he can't express an opinion. The roads forum, for me anyway, is one of the most interesting on boards, and that is down to mainly the intelligent and informed updates which Marno provides. As it happens, I keep an eye on the forum for work reasons also. You may recall a poster here mentioned that something hadn't being changed after a road had being re-lined. A few days after I read this, that certain issue was sorted on site ;-) Anyway, the way I see it, if you stop this road being built along the current route, Europe is going to pull the plug on funding, because there is no feasible alternative route! So instead of getting an improved road complete with sound barriers, which will improve your quality of living, you will be left with the dangerous mess of a road which we currently have.
marno21 wrote: » I have had a look through the posts on the M28 Steering Group's Facebook page. According to the page, the scheme is wrong for three reasons: Busy and dangerous roads: The N28 at present between Carrs Hill and the N40 is a single carraigeway with frequent on ramps and a lot of weaving, 2 lanes in one direction and 1 in the other with no central barrier. The new scheme will now have 4 lanes (2 in each direction), a central barrier meaning safe overtaking, and the removal of the on-ramp at Maryborough Hill in favour of an upgraded, safer, full movement interchange at Carrs Hill. The N28 from Carrs Hill to Carrigaline is a narrow, tight, bendy mess of a road with no turning lanes and traffic averaging 23k per day. IF ANYTHING THE M28 is REMOVING a dangerous road and making the N28 corridor MUCH SAFER. Property devaluation: Instead of living in a congested area with half junctions and a poorly underpowered junction at Carrs Hill, where to complete certain movements motorists end up rat running through housing estates (Mount Oval), there will now be a full junction at Carrs Hill and an improved off ramp at Mount Oval, together with a new link road from Maryborough to the interchange. If anything, improved traffic flow means better living conditions. The majority of people would rather buy a house near a motorway (it's not as if you are fronting onto the motorway, and your house is well seperated from the motorway - this is a 2018 build with lots of conditions attached, not a 1970s build). Noise pollution: The existing traffic isn't going to disappear if this scheme goes ahead, in fact now it can get by without massive jams and the upgraded road will have a quieter surface and likely new sound barriers. The new interchange at Carrs Hill will also hopefully keep more traffic on the motorway and stop (even a few) rat runs through Douglas/Rochestown/Mount Oval etc. There's also an image about black lungs. If anything there will be LESS POLLUTION as traffic no longer has to spend time parked at the top of Carrs Hill in a jam. How many members of the "M28 Steering Group" so concerned about pollution smoke cigarettes?
gerogerigegege wrote: » very poor moderator. goes around accusing people of NIMBYism and then posts that NIMBYism should not be mentioned or discussed.
captainspeed wrote: » This 'steering group' is an absolute joke, fortunately there are only 89 people following it on facebook (as I write) and it is nothing more than complete hot air. As others have noted, the M28 will be further away from some houses than the existing road, there will be sound barriers and obviously it will transform access between the city and Carrigaline, Crosshaven, Ringaskiddy. It makes me embarrassed to say I'm from Cork when I read these nonsense objections, these people want to hold the development of our city back for no good reason. The concerns, however genuine they may seem, are totally irrational and without logic when one looks at the truth of the matter. The Port is being moved to Ringaskiddy whether we like it or not, so the traffic on the existing road is going to increase no matter what anyway, so it's going to be even more and more unsuitable. It's not very often that we get free EU money to build a substantial portion of a road, and with all the other spending pressures, we shouldn't be saying no thanks to a few hundred million of EU funding because of irrational and unfounded reasons.Don't let a few NIMBYs hold the development of our city back and just get on with it really!
marno21 wrote: » My post above was just about the M28 Steering Group's negatives. Let's not forget that on weekdays over 28k vehicles per day use this stretch of road:
gerogerigegege wrote: » invest in public transport. more buses. more efficiency. less cars on the road. less pollution and destruction. everyone wins.
Cookiemunster wrote: » How is any of that going to change the fact that the current road won't be able to handle the future volume of HGVs?
gerogerigegege wrote: » there's plenty of over paid qualified people that will sort that out. my concern is the impact on the area I and family and friends live in.
Cookiemunster wrote: » In other words, you have no idea and can put no alternative forward.You're the one saying the this road shouldn't go where it's planned so the burden is on you not anyone else to come up with an alternative.
gerogerigegege wrote: » that's your worry not mine. theres no onus on me to do anything but resist the destruction of the area I live in.
Cookiemunster wrote: » Quite the contrary. Your group wants the road moved elsewhere. To have any hope of changing the route an alternative will be needed. The experts have decided that the best route that causes the least disruption is the current planned route. You have to prove that the experts are incorrect and that they is a better alternative if you want to win your case.
Middle Man wrote: » Same old mantra - heard it all before - in the 1990's! Ever heard of integrated transport planning???
gerogerigegege wrote: » No, please share your knowledge. Thanks
gerogerigegege wrote: » Like I said. There's no onus on me to find an alternative route. That's not my group. Its a place to fond information Work from there or maybe contact the group yourself if you feel the need to do so
