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

Cork Trucker · 13-08-2019 11:04pm

cjpm wrote: »

It's actually a disgrace the lack of any progress in Cork since FG got in power. What has Coveney achieved for Cork. SFA is far as I can see. Apart from posing at the sod turning for the events centre. The rest of the FG crowd in cork have done fcuk all either.

It's Ireland's 2nd city for gods sake.

Dunkettle is a shambles
No progress with the Ringaskiddy road
M20 being redesigned 10 years too late.
No concrete plans for a North Ring road.

FFS. It's appalling.

A No Brexit deal will trigger another recession here pushing it back another 10+ years. FG are every bit as bad as FF were pre 2011.

_Kaiser_ · 14-08-2019 4:56pm

Cork Trucker wrote: »

I see that the 'Objectors' now say they await a decision sometime between October 7th and December 20th next. With a No Deal Brexit looming the port in Ringaskiddy is boosting its customs activity, presumably for the expected increase in traffic travelling to Spain & France. All the more reason to get this road built. These court cases really need to be dealt with as a matter of priority instead of multiple adjournments, the Cork roads network is falling apart from legal and financial problems.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ringaskiddy-boosts-customs-capacity-under-brexit-plan-942234.html

I'm not normally one for giving the likes of FG or their hangers-on in the various bodies more powers, but there really needs to be an "For the Greater Good Executive Order" override for NIMBY nonsense like this.

Of course half the problem is the money being made out of it by the lawyers.

Cork Trucker · 20-08-2019 1:54pm

No sight nor sound from the 'objectors' in relation to the proposed road works on the Rochestown Road.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Rochestown-junctions-and-road-surface-need-to-be-prioritised-for-upgrades-8e63cff0-351e-45c7-98ac-ae7284648e7f-ds

Baldilocks · 20-08-2019 8:16pm

But what about all the extra pollution it will bring to the area.............
Oh woe, oh woe!

Cork Trucker · 20-08-2019 9:37pm

Baldilocks wrote: »

But what about all the extra pollution it will bring to the area.............
Oh woe, oh woe!

They're hypocrites

marno21 · 04-09-2019 7:36pm

Project not to start for 4/5 years as per Paul Moran, TII:

A High Court decision on the current status of the M28 motorway project is anticipated in October.

Mr Moran said if this is delayed, it could "add years to the project" timeframe.

"But, let's be positive and say that we can win it," he said. "Then we can start a project of three years of advance works."

In his presentation, he noted that the "earliest" that main works would take place would be late 2023 or early 2024 due to the complexities associated with water mains, work on the Rochestown Road and any potential further objections.

MOD:

No objector bashing please. We've heard it all before.

Cork Trucker · 04-09-2019 7:45pm

marno21 wrote: »

Project not to start for 4/5 years as per Paul Moran, TII:

A High Court decision on the current status of the M28 motorway project is anticipated in October.

Mr Moran said if this is delayed, it could "add years to the project" timeframe.

"But, let's be positive and say that we can win it," he said. "Then we can start a project of three years of advance works."

In his presentation, he noted that the "earliest" that main works would take place would be late 2023 or early 2024 due to the complexities associated with water mains, work on the Rochestown Road and any potential further objections.

MOD:

No objector bashing please. We've heard it all before.

Say that 'the objectors' action is successful, and the appeals keep going back and forth, how long would it be anticipated to delay everything for? based on the dates you've given that's if all goes to plan? if not is 2030 reasonable?

marno21 · 04-09-2019 7:48pm

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Say that 'the objectors' action is successful, and the appeals keep going back and forth, how long would it be anticipated to delay everything for? based on the dates you've given that's if all goes to plan? if not is 2030 reasonable?

It depends really on the nature of the objection, but it would put it back by at least a year I'd imagine.

Given the amount of online works and traffic management involved I'd imagine this is a three year build, so it won't be open at this stage until late 2026/early 2027.

It's actually depressing.

Cork Trucker · 04-09-2019 8:49pm

marno21 wrote: »

It depends really on the nature of the objection, but it would put it back by at least a year I'd imagine.

Given the amount of online works and traffic management involved I'd imagine this is a three year build, so it won't be open at this stage until late 2026/early 2027.

It's actually depressing.

We all know the nature of their objection and their proposed rerouting of it all. 2026/27 is madness. Had the legal proceedings not have issued is it safe to assume construction would have begun by now? This delay could cost Cork and the Munster region as a whole dearly post Brexit. Would it be correct to say the port can't or won't move prior to it opening and in turn delaying another vital project?

marno21 · 04-09-2019 9:38pm

Cork Trucker wrote: »

We all know the nature of their objection and their proposed rerouting of it all. 2026/27 is madness. Had the legal proceedings not have issued is it safe to assume construction would have begun by now? This delay could cost Cork and the Munster region as a whole dearly post Brexit. Would it be correct to say the port can't or won't move prior to it opening and in turn delaying another vital project?

Nope, it looks from this timescale that construction would be 3.5/4 years after they get planning approval. So if there was no objections (they have delayed it by ~18 months to date), it would have likely started early 2022.

The Port at Ringaskiddy is under operational restrictions until the M28 and Dunkettle Interchange are complete.

kub · 04-09-2019 11:42pm

marno21 wrote: »

Nope, it looks from this timescale that construction would be 3.5/4 years after they get planning approval. So if there was no objections (they have delayed it by ~18 months to date), it would have likely started early 2022.

The Port at Ringaskiddy is under operational restrictions until the M28 and Dunkettle Interchange are complete.

I hope that the Harbour Commissioners are aware of these operational restrictions because on today's Echo Live :

PORT of Cork CEO Brendan Keating has warned that investment in shipping infrastructure is key to offsetting the effects of Brexit in the southern region of the country.

Mr Keating told the Construction Industry Federation Southern Construct conference that the Port, which had a €35.4 million turnover in 2018, will be hit by Brexit with decreased agricultural activity projected and a reduction of dry bulk goods being shipped and must adapt to new trends in international shipping.

“The region is highly dependent on international growth in the achievement of economic growth and highly dependent on international shipping,” Mr Keating said.

“We must continue to invest in port infrastructure,” he added.

Brendan Keating, Chief Executive, Port of Cork Company.

He explained that the Port of Cork must be flexible and adjustable to international trading patterns and investment in infrastructure to facilitate this will be vital.

Last year, the Port of Cork Company commenced the €86 million Ringaskiddy Port Redevelopment project in the lower harbour which aims to future-proof the Port of Cork Company as an international gateway for trade.

The development aims to increase the Port’s container capacity to 350,000 units annually by developing a major new port terminal and an extension of the deepwater berth.

Mr Keating said the soon to be vacated by the Port of Cork Tivoli docklands represents a “huge opportunity” for growth and prosperity in the Cork region with the city centre expected to expand into this area.

He also highlighted the growth of the cruise ship industry in the county as an area where the Port has diversified.

The combined traffic of both the Ports of Cork and Bantry increased to 10.66 million tonnes in 2018 up from 10.3 million tonnes in 2017, an increase of 3% due to increased bulk cargo activity as result of the 2018 fodder crisis and increased container traffic at Tivoli.

So we will in all probability have a constant traffic jam on the existing N28 for a few years in that case.

So the world continues while the court drags its heels and the objectors do as they do, but I wonder will they regret their action soon?

Hibernicis · 30-09-2019 4:29pm

I checked today and this is still on the High Court list for 17th October. **

Let's hope that it's a decision this time.

Cork Trucker · 30-09-2019 4:44pm

Hibernicis wrote: »

I checked today and this is still on the High Court list for 17th October. **

Let's hope that it's a decision this time.

Yeah the ‘objectors’ have it on their page as being between October 5th-21st

How do people see this panning out in all reality?

Chris_5339762 · 30-09-2019 8:56pm

In my opinion: Judge will dismiss it but will allow leave to appeal. It goes to the Supreme Court the very same day and we sit in limbo for another few years.

I don't think the judge will quash the planning due to how important the scheme is.

Cork Trucker · 30-09-2019 9:25pm

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

In my opinion: Judge will dismiss it but will allow leave to appeal. It goes to the Supreme Court the very same day and we sit in limbo for another few years.

I don't think the judge will quash the planning due to how important the scheme is.

I can see it ending up in Europe if leave to appeal is granted. Can’t see the ECJ going against something being funded by Brussels. Nor can I see the ‘objectors’ being landed with legal costs.

BelfastVanMan · 01-10-2019 9:18am

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

In my opinion: Judge will dismiss it but will allow leave to appeal. It goes to the Supreme Court the very same day and we sit in limbo for another few years.

I don't think the judge will quash the planning due to how important the scheme is.

I can see it ending up in Europe if leave to appeal is granted. Can’t see the ECJ going against something being funded by Brussels. Nor can I see the ‘objectors’ being landed with legal costs.

I agree.... another taxpayer-funded fiasco, thanks to selfish, ignorant NIMBYs.

Wonderful.

Markcheese · 01-10-2019 9:36am

BelfastVanMan wrote: »

I agree.... another taxpayer-funded fiasco, thanks to selfish, ignorant NIMBYs.

Wonderful.

Even if the costs were to be awarded, it won't matter, the individual or individuals who are listed as taking the case, won't have any assets or income...
It definitely won't be someone with a business or large house (in their name)...

Cork Trucker · 01-10-2019 10:09am

Markcheese wrote: »

Even if the costs were to be awarded, it won't matter, the individual or individuals who are listed as taking the case, won't have any assets or income...
It definitely won't be someone with a business or large house (in their name)...

At least 2 of the head honcho’s are self employed with assets, what liabilities they have from them only god knows. If they lose and aren’t landed with costs it gives off the impression that you can have a free run at it. If that happens then expect similar of the M20 if that ever gets going

kub · 01-10-2019 10:16pm

Meanwhile in a parallel universe a new ferry service will be operating to Spain from 2020 on.

https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/vigo/vigo/2019/09/30/ferri-unira-vigo-reino-unido-irlanda-2020/0003_201909201909301569842389496.htm

Which is great news for Ringaskiddy.

Just a pity that those in the legal world are in a different existance than the real world.

It is beyond a joke at this stage at the length of time that these cases take and i cannot help but assume there must be vested interests at work in the legal trade

Hibernicis · 04-10-2019 3:57pm

Cork Trucker wrote: »

At least 2 of the head honcho’s are self employed with assets, what liabilities they have from them only god knows. If they lose and aren’t landed with costs it gives off the impression that you can have a free run at it. If that happens then expect similar of the M20 if that ever gets going

Under the Irish implementation of the Aarhus convention, there are rights to information and participation in certain environmental and planning situations, and in particular a member of the public seeking a review of a public decision will generally not be liable for their costs if they lose and may be entitled to their costs from the losing party if they win. This was introduced to prevent appeals being blocked by the defendant (usually a large public body) seeking a lien or claim over the assets of the objector to cover the defendants costs in order to scare the objector off. A consequence of this is that an appeal (such as a judicial review) can be launched without Risk to one’s personal assets. There are rules to disallow this where the case is deemed to be vexatious or frivolous. In general, this has to be considered to be a good thing, allowing public participation in the planning process and helping to ensure accountability. However in a number of cases it has allowed single individuals and very small vocal minorities to delay and frustrate legitimate projects to a ridiculous extent. We have seen this with both public sector projects (e.g. M28) and in the private sector (e.g. Intel Fab plants and the Apple data centre)

So it would appear that the M28 Steering Group in focusing on the environmental aspects in their appeal are protecting themselves and their assets in this way.

Cork Trucker · 04-10-2019 5:20pm

Hibernicis wrote: »

Under the Irish implementation of the Aarhus convention, there are rights to information and participation in certain environmental and planning situations, and in particular a member of the public seeking a review of a public decision will generally not be liable for their costs if they lose and may be entitled to their costs from the losing party if they win. This was introduced to prevent appeals being blocked by the defendant (usually a large public body) seeking a lien or claim over the assets of the objector to cover the defendants costs in order to scare the objector off. A consequence of this is that an appeal (such as a judicial review) can be launched without Risk to one’s personal assets. There are rules to disallow this where the case is deemed to be vexatious or frivolous. In general, this has to be considered to be a good thing, allowing public participation in the planning process and helping to ensure accountability. However in a number of cases it has allowed single individuals and very small vocal minorities to delay and frustrate legitimate projects to a ridiculous extent. We have seen this with both public sector projects (e.g. M28) and in the private sector (e.g. Intel Fab plants and the Apple data centre)

So it would appear that the M28 Steering Group in focusing on the environmental aspects in their appeal are protecting themselves and their assets in this way.

This is a very informative piece, one of which I was not aware.

danny004 · 12-10-2019 3:48pm

Anyone think there will be some news on the judical review from the M28 steering group next Thursday which is the next scheduled date

Cork Trucker · 12-10-2019 4:19pm

danny004 wrote: »

Anyone think there will be some news on the judical review from the M28 steering group next Thursday which is the next scheduled date

No doubt they are already in discussions with their legal team about it but are keeping quiet for now.

Hibernicis · 13-10-2019 2:40pm

danny004 wrote: »

Anyone think there will be some news on the judical review from the M28 steering group next Thursday which is the next scheduled date

There definitely won’t be. The date on the High Court website has been changed to 28/11/2019

danny004 · 13-10-2019 6:31pm

Hibernicis wrote: »

There definitely won’t be. The date on the High Court website has been changed to 28/11/2019

What a mess and does anybody know if these dates are fixed to get a judgement on that date or a moving date that a judgement would be received beforehand at any time

Hibernicis · 13-10-2019 8:16pm

danny004 wrote: »

What a mess and does anybody know if these dates are fixed to get a judgement on that date or a moving date that a judgement would be received beforehand at any time

It’s noted in exactly the same way as the previous date was so I’d see no reason why it shouldn’t change again. Then again, it’s hardly changing without good reason. The judge may well have been busy with out her cases.

danny004 · 13-10-2019 9:21pm

Cork Trucker wrote: »

No doubt they are already in discussions with their legal team about it but are keeping quiet for now.

but whats the intended purpose of the date ie is it to have all parties in a courtroom to deliver a judgement or is it just an estimated date that a judgement will be delivered by in some form of written communication

Cork Trucker · 13-10-2019 9:48pm

danny004 wrote: »

but whats the intended purpose of the date ie is it to have all parties in a courtroom to deliver a judgement or is it just an estimated date that a judgement will be delivered by in some form of written communication

I was of the belief it was to deliver judgement on whether the E.I.S was valid or to be declared void. If void then it has to go back to ABP. And even if it was i can't see how any court be it in Ireland or Europe is going to order the Irish Government and Brussels, who are stumping up alot of cash for this motorway to go out the South Ring Road, onto the KRR,up the Airport Road (N27) out onto Ballygarvan and back towards the Shannonpark roundabout via the R613 and over a flyover on the roundabout when the easiest, simplest, cheapest solution is to go via the N28. I can see this hitting the ECJ and then being thrown out once and for all, now if there are minor flaws in between then fine, i don't know if there will be, but if there is i can't see it being so serious as to shop a bunch of 'objectors' of maybe a dozen who formed a group to object and got roughly 100-150 into the RPH for their meetings which included vote hungry politicians, so dilute that number down again a fraction, and you have maybe 0.01 percent of the alleged 10,000 they claim to represent. Legislation needs to be bought forward to rid these 'objectors' from unnecessarily delaying the process, some might say it is their right to object and yes it is, however this needs to be balanced with what is best for society. The chairman of that group is a Northsider, Justin,Gerard, whatever the bloody hell his name is, the names i mention appear faux pas, when the Blackpool bypass was being built in people's backyards in the late 90's or when the northern ring road was built in the 80's this man was nowhere to be found, and when these roads were being built there wasn't a single objection. When i drive along the Blackpool bypass the odd time in my rig i can see into people's kitchens, that issue won't arise here, but they are simply too snobby for their own good and think they can take on and beat the world due to LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION.

BelfastVanMan · 14-10-2019 11:22am

Cork Trucker wrote: »

danny004 wrote: »

but whats the intended purpose of the date ie is it to have all parties in a courtroom to deliver a judgement or is it just an estimated date that a judgement will be delivered by in some form of written communication

I was of the belief it was to deliver judgement on whether the E.I.S was valid or to be declared void. If void then it has to go back to ABP. And even if it was i can't see how any court be it in Ireland or Europe is going to order the Irish Government and Brussels, who are stumping up alot of cash for this motorway to go out the South Ring Road, onto the KRR,up the Airport Road (N27) out onto Ballygarvan and back towards the Shannonpark roundabout via the R613 and over a flyover on the roundabout when the easiest, simplest, cheapest solution is to go via the N28. I can see this hitting the ECJ and then being thrown out once and for all, now if there are minor flaws in between then fine, i don't know if there will be, but if there is i can't see it being so serious as to shop a bunch of 'objectors' of maybe a dozen who formed a group to object and got roughly 100-150 into the RPH for their meetings which included vote hungry politicians, so dilute that number down again a fraction, and you have maybe 0.01 percent of the alleged 10,000 they claim to represent. Legislation needs to be bought forward to rid these 'objectors' from unnecessarily delaying the process, some might say it is their right to object and yes it is, however this needs to be balanced with what is best for society. The chairman of that group is a Northsider, Justin,Gerard, whatever the bloody hell his name is, the names i mention appear faux pas, when the Blackpool bypass was being built in people's backyards in the late 90's or when the northern ring road was built in the 80's this man was nowhere to be found, and when these roads were being built there wasn't a single objection. When i drive along the Blackpool bypass the odd time in my rig i can see into people's kitchens, that issue won't arise here, but they are simply too snobby for their own good and think they can take on and beat the world due to LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION.

I think almost all of us have nothing to add to that.

Perfectly put.

marno21 · 14-10-2019 11:33am

I have posted quite a lot on this thread in the past, however recently I have been commuting on the N28 (or actively avoiding doing that) and I’ve observed a few things. Perhaps a few other Carrigaline area commuters may want to weigh in

1. Whilst the climbing lane north of Maxol is useful for overtaking trucks outside of peak times, it actively contributes to congestion at peak times. It’s far too short and cars shoot out into the overtaking lane before having to brake and merge back in 400m up the road. Especially in wet conditions it causes massive accordion type braking and creates a needless phantom jam. Perhaps designating it as a bus lane at peak times may resolve the issue

2. The segregated M28N -> N40W will be a huge help around Bloomfield, there’s far too much happening in such a short distance at present between the Maryborough slip, Rochestown on ramp and Bloomfield diverge. Having an exclusive M28N -> N40E lane will also help as traffic often queues back onto the single lane N28 caused by congestion on the N40 East lane due to Jack Lynch Tunnel congestion. The increased use of the Maryborough on ramp by Douglas traffic at present due to the road closure from the fire isn’t helping either

3. Unless it’s properly addressed, the Douglas flyover is going to become the most constrained stretch of road in Ireland. It is a massive bottleneck and will have to be widened to 3 lanes at some stage. The lack of alternative east west crossing points in the area is a massive contributor here also

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

Comments