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

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

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.

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

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.

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

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.

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

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.

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.

kub wrote: »

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

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 ?

Treehelpplease wrote: »

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

Treehelpplease wrote: »

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

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?