Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…3132343637…44

Comments

  • Options
    #992
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    kub wrote: »
    Dear Judge, please see below, yet another reason for a proper road infrastructure in that area:


    https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/cork-lands-primed-for-housing-at-20m-37357608.html

    The link from Maryborough Ridge to the Carrs Hill Interchange makes an awful lot of sense for that development


  • Options
    #993
    richiepurgas
    Registered Users Posts: 164 ✭✭richiepurgas


    The group protesting against the motorway had massive publicity about a year ago , across all the media.
    They seem to have gone to ground in more recent times, though.


  • Options
    #994
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,547 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    marno21 wrote: »
    The link from Maryborough Ridge to the Carrs Hill Interchange makes an awful lot of sense for that development

    It’s absolutely crazy it isn’t happening.

    With the M28 opening, a link road past the interchange could be done between Moneygurney and the old N28.


  • Options
    #995
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    It’s absolutely crazy it isn’t happening.

    With the M28 opening, a link road past the interchange could be done between Moneygurney and the old N28.
    It would also be an effective method of distributing traffic and reducing overall congestion. Traffic east of the M28 could access Carrs Hill Interchange via the Maryborough Ridge link and traffic west of the M28 could access via the new Maryborough Hill link road.

    A second link from the Carrs Hill interchange to Maryborough Ridge would also be a fantastic reason to eliminate the lunacy of having a direct exit slip road from a motorway to a housing estate at Mount Oval.


  • Options
    #996
    kub
    Registered Users Posts: 6,534 ✭✭✭kub


    marno21 wrote:
    A second link from the Carrs Hill interchange to Maryborough Ridge would also be a fantastic reason to eliminate the lunacy of having a direct exit slip road from a motorway to a housing estate at Mount Oval.


    I have wondered since this announcement was made, was it a decision to pacify residents there?

    Just the link through Maryborough Ridge makes so much sense and I do not get the logic of a motorway exit into a housing estate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #997
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,547 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    kub wrote: »
    I have wondered since this announcement was made, was it a decision to pacify residents there?

    Just the link through Maryborough Ridge makes so much sense and I do not get the logic of a motorway exit into a housing estate.

    Correct. The original M28 plans had a link road here.

    Give a year or so, the residents will be crying out for the link road like at the M20 - N7 junction in Limerick.


  • Options
    #998
    MrDerp
    Registered Users Posts: 991 ✭✭✭MrDerp


    kub wrote: »
    Dear Judge, please see below, yet another reason for a proper road infrastructure in that area:


    https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/cork-lands-primed-for-housing-at-20m-37357608.html

    Alas, the judge isn’t deciding on merit, he’s deciding on if policy was followed and due attention was given to the concerns of residents.

    Looks like steering group is busy:
    There was a motion filed on 21/09 and an order made for replies by October 4th.
    An affadavit laws the lodged on 24/09
    Back before the courts on October 4th.

    Speculation? They’re making a motion to defer while they run the 500 table quizzes they need to raise 200 k


  • Options
    #999
    richiepurgas
    Registered Users Posts: 164 ✭✭richiepurgas


    MrDerp wrote: »
    Alas, the judge isn’t deciding on merit, he’s deciding on if policy was followed and due attention was given to the concerns of residents.

    Looks like steering group is busy:
    There was a motion filed on 21/09 and an order made for replies by October 4th.
    An affadavit laws the lodged on 24/09
    Back before the courts on October 4th.

    Speculation? They’re making a motion to defer while they run the 500 table quizzes they need to raise 200 k

    What do those court images mean to a lay person ?


  • Options
    #1000
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    marno21 wrote: »

    A second link from the Carrs Hill interchange to Maryborough Ridge would also be a fantastic reason to eliminate the lunacy of having a direct exit slip road from a motorway to a housing estate at Mount Oval.

    Why are you constantly objecting to this slip road? The speed limit on the new "motorway" in that area will be 100kmph. The current limit on the road there is 100kmph. The road is not changing to any large degree there. If anything traffic will be going slower there than it currently does due to trucksstruggling up that hill. It works fine now and does not cause any issues or pose a threat. So why is it "lunacy"?


  • Options
    #1001
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Ludo wrote: »
    Why are you constantly objecting to this slip road? The speed limit on the new "motorway" in that area will be 100kmph. The current limit on the road there is 100kmph. The road is not changing to any large degree there. If anything traffic will be going slower there than it currently does due to trucksstruggling up that hill. It works fine now and does not cause any issues or pose a threat. So why is it "lunacy"?

    Because it is bad practice to build enterances from motorways to housing estates, especially ones that don't require the driver to slow down at any stage exiting the motorway

    This is the only example in Ireland of an exit from a motorway to a housing development. The slip road should have been closed and an alternative access found


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1002
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    marno21 wrote: »
    Because it is bad practice to build enterances from motorways to housing estates, especially ones that don't require the driver to slow down at any stage exiting the motorway

    This is the only example in Ireland of an exit from a motorway to a housing development. The slip road should have been closed and an alternative access found

    So just because the same road is being designated a motorway with no actual physical change at the point (and no speed limit change), then the slip road has to go? It is this form of ill-thought out and ill-informed opinions and decisions by people who quite obviously do not know how traffic in the area work that has resulted in a lot of the objections to the road. And you obviously don't know that slip road well as if you did, you would know that if you try taking it at 100kmph without slowing down, you will end up crashing.

    I know plenty of people in Mount Oval (I am not one of them) who object to the M28. They all agree the road is needed but it is silly things like this that they objected to originally. Now even though sense was seen by the people who matter, the feeling of ill-will remains to the road and some still object.

    Hopefully, it will go ahead, but by god it could have been so much easier.


  • Options
    #1003
    MrDerp
    Registered Users Posts: 991 ✭✭✭MrDerp


    richiepurgas wrote: »
    What do those court images mean to a lay person ?

    Good question and I don't rightly know - I'm as lay as the rest of us. I've been trying to google procedures to get some semblance of what's going on, but it's very opaque. It's useful to see dates though.

    All I can tell is that there was a motion last Friday, and the M28 steering group made a paper submission since, and the next hearing is on October 4th which may be specifically about the motion, or the next phase in the process.


  • Options
    #1004
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Ludo wrote: »
    So just because the same road is being designated a motorway with no actual physical change at the point (and no speed limit change), then the slip road has to go? It is this form of ill-thought out and ill-informed opinions and decisions by people who quite obviously do not know how traffic in the area work that has resulted in a lot of the objections to the road. And you obviously don't know that slip road well as if you did, you would know that if you try taking it at 100kmph without slowing down, you will end up crashing.

    I know plenty of people in Mount Oval (I am not one of them) who object to the M28. They all agree the road is needed but it is silly things like this that they objected to originally. Now even though sense was seen by the people who matter, the feeling of ill-will remains to the road and some still object.

    Hopefully, it will go ahead, but by god it could have been so much easier.

    Sorry Ludo got sidetracked when replying to this.

    The slip road on the existing N28 shouldn't really be there either and if Mount Oval were built in 2018 there would be close to zero chance of that slip road being permitted. These type of slip roads are not recommended from roads like the N28 and instead access at proper junctions is what's advised. There are similar examples of accesses from major roads in other areas but none are recent (e.g Kew Park on the N4).

    The ideal solution here would have been to provide an alternative access to the area which wouldn't involve too much of a diversion while at the same time providing better access (the Mount Oval slip allows traffic just to exit, an alternative access would provide better access from Mount Oval to the N28, and possibly also in the Ringaskiddy direction).

    It's clear that the only reason for continuing with the Mount Oval slip is because it's there already and removing it would lead to too much disquiet. At this stage, I'm not sure if it's even worth talking about as it's going to go ahead anyway.

    Access from Maryborough Ridge to the Carrs Hill interchange would provide better access to Rochestown as a whole, with access from the western side and the eastern side seperated to reduce congestion and bottlenecking. It could have been a useful alternative to the Mount Oval slip


  • Options
    #1005
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    High court hearing on this on February 26th.

    Representative of the repulsive NIMBY outfit looking for cash on 96FM there

    More here: https://www.96fm.ie/news/date-set-for-judicial-review-on-proposed-cork-ri/

    And before anyone takes offence to the word NIMBY:
    They have no problem with a motorway being built but the proposed location is not suitable for residents in the area.


  • Options
    #1006
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    marno21 wrote: »

    The ideal solution here would have been to provide an alternative access to the area which wouldn't involve too much of a diversion while at the same time providing better access (the Mount Oval slip allows traffic just to exit, an alternative access would provide better access from Mount Oval to the N28, and possibly also in the Ringaskiddy direction).

    It's clear that the only reason for continuing with the Mount Oval slip is because it's there already and removing it would lead to too much disquiet. At this stage, I'm not sure if it's even worth talking about as it's going to go ahead anyway.

    Agree in general. The original proposal would have just funnelled even more traffic onto the Rochestown Road roundabout which is already a bottleneck. That to me is the main reason for keeping the existing exit if they are not prepared to offer a viable alternative and that is why there was disquiet.
    marno21 wrote: »
    Representative of the repulsive NIMBY outfit looking for cash on 96FM there...SNIP...
    And before anyone takes offence to the word NIMBY:

    It is your tone that is objectionable. A few posters on here who disagree with the steering group can't seem to discuss the issue without name calling and referring to people who they disagree with as, for example, repulsive. As a moderator of this forum, I would expect better to be honest and for you to make an effort to raise the tone of the discussion.

    I find the reaction to the steering group on here as extreme as the steering group itself and the closing of threads around this topic and not allowing negative posts shows a lack of self-awareness as that is one of the things that people complain that the steering group do.


  • Options
    #1007
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Ludo wrote: »
    Agree in general. The original proposal would have just funnelled even more traffic onto the Rochestown Road roundabout which is already a bottleneck. That to me is the main reason for keeping the existing exit if they are not prepared to offer a viable alternative and that is why there was disquiet.

    Indeed, it's a situation that has no ideal fix as the road network around there isn't really set up to deal with it. The proposed solution, while not ideal, is really the only practical way of going forward.
    Ludo wrote: »
    It is your tone that is objectionable. A few posters on here who disagree with the steering group can't seem to discuss the issue without name calling and referring to people who they disagree with as, for example, repulsive. As a moderator of this forum, I would expect better to be honest and for you to make an effort to raise the tone of the discussion.

    I find the reaction to the steering group on here as extreme as the steering group itself and the closing of threads around this topic and not allowing negative posts shows a lack of self-awareness as that is one of the things that people complain that the steering group do.

    In my tone here and elsewhere, I have absolutely zero tolerance for what is going on here and in other situations, where I have posted in a similar way. The group pushing this aren't even trying to hide the NIMBYism anymore going by the 96FM article. I find NIMBYism in general repulsive because the country is finally waking up to the obscene amount of it going on in the country and how it's a core issue holding back vital infrastructure projects, developments and housing. I don't believe I called anyone any names in my post above.

    It's no surprise there is quite an extreme reaction to the steering group. A lot of people rely on the N28 for a variety of reasons and it's upgrade is critical for the future of Cork and it's surroundings. As for closing threads and stopping negative posts, I can address this if you provide examples, but any actions I have taken were due to a lack of civil behaviour between posters, and last Christmas this thread was closed for the reasons outlined at the time.

    It's quite difficult as this forum is an Infrastructure discussion forum and this thread at times resembles anything from a County Council meeting to a pub argument. I will admit that I have been complicit in this, however, even though I am a moderator, I am entitled to my opinion which doesn't reflect the views of the forum or the website.


  • Options
    #1008
    kub
    Registered Users Posts: 6,534 ✭✭✭kub


    I must say i feel sorry for anyone in the Carrigaline/ Crosshaven/ Ringaskiddy area.
    I had the ' pleasure ' of leaving Carrigaline yesterday and travelling to the City via the N28.
    Soon after the junction with the road that leads to Maryborough Hill where the existing climbing lanes are, both lanes crawled.
    This snail pace continued right up along the very narrow bit of that road, I reckon it was a 20 minute crawl.
    Once i got onto the the wider section before the turn off for Douglas the traffic flowed easily.
    Meanwhile on the opposite side of the road, again 2 lanes of crawling drivers right up the Mulcon Valley Road.


    Yet these clowns in the steering group have the cheek to bring up environmental damage, I can only imagine and would love to compare the emissions from all the vehicles i witnessed yesterday with vehicles moving normally on a motorway.


    These people do not give a damn about the environment and only give a hoot about this motorway being relocated elsewhere. Which they do not give two hoots about once it does not affect the propert value of their own homes.


    Anyone out there who is entertaining this crowd really need to wake up.


    I have read their publications, their posters and their facebook page, they are liars, bluffers and I would love to put down some of the words i would usually use but I am aware of boards policy there.


    They are classic NIMBY people.


    Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to wake up.


    So Fast track in the High Court is next Feburary, what a joke, i would hate to know what a slow track is there.


    So NIMBY is now delaying this road by 6 months at least.


    I am sure the commuters who use the N28 everyday will be delighted to know that.


  • Options
    #1009
    kub
    Registered Users Posts: 6,534 ✭✭✭kub


    marno21 wrote: »
    High court hearing on this on February 26th.

    Representative of the repulsive NIMBY outfit looking for cash on 96FM there

    More here: https://www.96fm.ie/news/date-set-for-judicial-review-on-proposed-cork-ri/

    And before anyone takes offence to the word NIMBY:


    Did you notice the picture, no doubt supplied by the bluffers.


    The big grey areas between the bridges over Rochestown Road.


    Bluffing yet again by the NIMBY brigade.


  • Options
    #1010
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    Has anyone seen this? The NIMBY's have a new group teaming up with them to raise money.

    https://gogetfunding.com/save-raffeen-quarry/


  • Options
    #1011
    kub
    Registered Users Posts: 6,534 ✭✭✭kub


    Cork Trucker wrote:
    Has anyone seen this? The NIMBY's have a new group teaming up with them to raise money.

    I am not sure about them, look at the photo's, they are not against it, they just want it angled slightly in one direction away from ' the habitat '

    Perhaps it is the other crowd also bluffing again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1012
    prunudo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,193 ✭✭✭prunudo


    Cork Trucker wrote: »
    Has anyone seen this? The NIMBY's have a new group teaming up with them to raise money.

    https://gogetfunding.com/save-raffeen-quarry/

    Don't know the area, are they legitimate concerns? If so then it shouldn't have passed the eis, it not then we'll never build anything in this country if we stop progress for every insect and little flower that might get damaged.


  • Options
    #1013
    kub
    Registered Users Posts: 6,534 ✭✭✭kub


    jvan wrote:
    Don't know the area, are they legitimate concerns? If so then it shouldn't have paased the eis, it not then we'll never build anything in this country if we stop progress for every insect and little flower that might get damaged.


    They are tree huggers that the NIMBY brigade have obviously gotten in contact with and have formed an alliance, at least that is my impression anyway.
    Here is a quote from the tree huggers comments section;

    Rafeen Quarry is such a beautiful place, full of wildlife! Very happy to support the judicial review funding campaign, hoping to save this biodiversity hot-spot from destruction


  • Options
    #1014
    BelfastVanMan
    Registered Users Posts: 667 ✭✭✭BelfastVanMan


    kub wrote: »
    jvan wrote:
    Don't know the area, are they legitimate concerns? If so then it shouldn't have paased the eis, it not then we'll never build anything in this country if we stop progress for every insect and little flower that might get damaged.


    They are tree huggers that the NIMBY brigade have obviously gotten in contact with and have formed an alliance, at least that is my impression anyway.
    Here is a quote from the tree huggers comments section;

    Rafeen Quarry is such a beautiful place, full of wildlife! Very happy to support the judicial review funding campaign, hoping to save this biodiversity hot-spot from destruction

    They love the sound of their own illogical, badly-researched, ignorant and selfish voices, don't they? :-/


  • Options
    #1015
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,442 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    BelfastVanMan wrote: »
    They love the sound of their own illogical, badly-researched, ignorant and selfish voices, don't they? :-/
    But this is a different crowd isn't it? If it was the "steering group" I'd be dismissing them as well as they have no concern for wildlife, but these guys might be the real deal. As kub says they don't want it stopped just realigned.


  • Options
    #1016
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    That link above sums up all that is wrong with the Irish planning system.


  • Options
    #1017
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,442 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    marno21 wrote: »
    That link above sums up all that is wrong with the Irish planning system.
    Can you elaborate? Honestly don't know whether you agree the planning shouldn't have allowed it through the quarry and it shouldn't have got to the stage of judical review, it should have been moved a few hundred metres previously, or you just disagree with anyone opposing any aspect of the M28?


  • Options
    #1018
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Can you elaborate? Honestly don't know whether you agree the planning shouldn't have allowed it through the quarry and it shouldn't have got to the stage of judical review, it should have been moved a few hundred metres previously, or you just disagree with anyone opposing any aspect of the M28?
    I disagree with the Quarry being used as a pawn to try and stop this.

    The project runs through the edge of Raffeen Quarry, and the justification for doing so is outlined here: http://www.n28cork-ringaskiddy.com/MCT0597PC0008aD01.pdf

    It's either take out the edge of the quarry or a golf course. There is no ideal solution here due to space constraints. It's a question of which is the lesser of two evils, CPOing part of the golf course or running it through the quarry? Ideally neither but unfortunately that's not an option here.


  • Options
    #1019
    Donegal Storm
    Registered Users Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭Donegal Storm


    Looking at that quarry on Google maps it's small, barren and littered with industrial waste. If these people actually gave a sh*t about it then why are they only piping up now instead of getting involved in the planning process much earlier


  • Options
    #1020
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,442 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    marno21 wrote: »
    I disagree with the Quarry being used as a pawn to try and stop this.
    Well to me in terms of environmental importance I'd say the quarry is better left untouched than a golf course.

    I'd agree if this group's intention was to stop it, i.e. they're just an extension of the "steering group", but if they have genuine concerns about the environmental impact and feel they weren't properly addressed earlier in the process then I can understand where they are coming from.

    Were there many objections regarding the quarry put in during the planning process do you know? Have this group (the people in it) just appeared out of nowhere?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1021
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Well to me in terms of environmental importance I'd say the quarry is better left untouched than a golf course.

    I'd agree if this group's intention was to stop it, i.e. they're just an extension of the "steering group", but if they have genuine concerns about the environmental impact and feel they weren't properly addressed earlier in the process then I can understand where they are coming from.

    Were there many objections regarding the quarry put in during the planning process do you know? Have this group (the people in it) just appeared out of nowhere?

    I can understand it too, I would prefer if the quarry wasn't used either but there is no alternative so it will have to be - save ploughing through the golf course which would have its own problems.

    I wasn't at the Oral Hearing but the objections related to the quarry are outlined in the Inspector's Report here: http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/reports/MA0/RMA0014.pdf


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement