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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

M28 - Cork to Ringaskiddy [advance works ongoing; 2025 start; 2028 completion]

  • 03-01-2005 5:41pm
    #1
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭


    This one is the proposed N28 cork to ringaskiddy project. This imo needs to be done asap for the sake of industry and carrigaline.

    Mod WARNING:
    This thread is just for discussing ongoing planning and development and construction when it starts. No discussion of route or route alternatives. Also no discussion of Road Traffic Incidents occurring on any route associated with this road.

    The route is waiting Planning decision from ABP. Due 21/12/2017 but postponed till April 2018, subsequently postponed until 6/07/2018.http://www.corkcoco.ie/co/pdf/5246203.pdf

    Post edited by marno21 on
    Tagged:


«134567…34

Comments

  • #2
    invincibleirish
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,219 ✭✭✭invincibleirish


    going over old ground here but its about time,the most important industrial region in the country is now only getting a decent road,if cie pull their finger out now and realise that most people in carrigaline(most car dependant town in the state) work in ringaskiddy and need a decent bus service to there,fat chance of that happening.


  • #3
    Lorcan26
    Closed Accounts Posts: 54 ✭✭Lorcan26


    would a train out there be justifiable? foynes wants a rail link, but it would handle more there than in ringaskiddy no? but there is all the industry in ringaskiddy, but im not sure how many people would needa rail link out there. as invincibleirish said, a regualr bus service would be more appropriate.


  • #4
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    I think this would be a great candidate for a light rail of some sort imo like the one there going to have in midleton. It would also pass other densely popultaed areas like douglas and maybe even diverted to mahon.

    Anyway just a thought.


  • #5
    Zaph0d
    Closed Accounts Posts: 756 ✭✭✭Zaph0d


    Does anyone know the budget for this road?


  • #6
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Moved to Infrastructure.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    The Word Is Bor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 254 ✭✭The Word Is Bor


    I saw what appeared to be some archaeological investigations (test trenching) taking place just off the existing N28 north of Carrigaline.


  • #8
    cc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 461 ✭✭cc


    to think think the port of cork wanted to move the container terminal to ringaskiddy with the existing road still in place!


  • #9
    Colm R
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 997 ✭✭✭Colm R


    cc wrote: »
    to think think the port of cork wanted to move the container terminal to ringaskiddy with the existing road still in place!

    Any idea whats going to happen to Tivoli when it does eventually move.

    I'm hoping with everything going on, it will be a smart sustainable development.


  • #10
    The Word Is Bor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 254 ✭✭The Word Is Bor


    Colm R wrote: »
    Any idea whats going to happen to Tivoli when it does eventually move.

    I'm hoping with everything going on, it will be a smart sustainable development.

    The Docklands Plan is dead in the water.

    Pun In Ten, Ted


  • #11
    Chris_533976
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Chris_533976


    So is the N28 and any thoughts of a port move.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    cc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 461 ✭✭cc


    i have noticed the traffic counters have reappeared just after the bloomfield interchange again...at least they'll have plenty of stats filed when the funds eventually become available for the upgrade :P


  • #13
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    For what it's worth, the brochures are here: http://www.corkrdo.ie/files/N28Bloomfield%28merge%29.pdf and here: http://www.corkrdo.ie/files/N28%20Brochure%20130308.pdf


  • #14
    Chris_533976
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Chris_533976


    I've always been impressed with the plans, they've managed to get a fairly simple looking DC into a very restricted area.


  • #15
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Chris_533976 wrote: »
    I've always been impressed with the plans, they've managed to get a fairly simple looking DC into a very restricted area.

    The plans do seem excellent. Having been on the N28 a lot recently I can really see that the old road is actually bursting at the seams. No right turns are permitted onto any of the junctions from the N25 to Carrigaline, and traffic flows are very constant and heavy. Unfortunately the proposed road has been suspended indefinitely.


  • #16
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    I suspect many locals would use the alternative route into Douglas village or branching off that over Grange.
    The N28 can get fairly busy but mostly at rush hour or ferry sailing times.Ive nver had a problem with it and theres only one fairly short bit that needs sorting out before carrigaline which is where the majority of the traffic will be headed.


  • #17
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Just found these articles in the Examiner from summer 2010.
    Claim failure to upgrade road would cost €59bn

    THE south-west region could lose more than €59 billion in trade in the next 25 years if the Government fails to upgrade the main road between Cork and Ringaskiddy.

    The startling claim came in a report commissioned by Cork Chamber which highlights the risk to trade if the N28 isn’t upgraded to serve the proposed Port of Cork’s new terminal in Ringaskiddy. The report, prepared by Indecon International Economic Consultants, stated upgrading the road to dual carriageway is "a key catalyst project that deserves priority status".

    Cork Chamber president Ger O’Mahoney said the N28 was crucial to the success of the region. The estimated cost is €163 million, which local business leaders suggested was a pittance compared with the losses which could be accrued if the project didn’t get the go-ahead.

    "The analysis and assessment in this report highlights the strong economic arguments for the upgrade of the N28 road scheme. Not only is the planned upgrade of the N28 a vital part of the external and internal connectivity of the south-west region, it would also represent the removal of a significant constraint to the international competitiveness of the region," Mr O’Mahony said. He said the failure to upgrade the N28 would have severe competitive and economic implications for the region from the probable damage to external connectivity through the Port of Cork

    Kevin Murray, chairman of the chamber’s transport and infrastructure committee, said the upgrade would also relieve commuter congestion, provide transportation capacity required to meet expected growth in freight traffic and copper-fasten the role of the N28 as a strategic national primary route.

    "The current situation whereby Ringaskiddy, an international pharmaceutical cluster, is served from Cork by a sub-standard narrow single-carriageway road is completely unacceptable, Mr Murray said.

    IDA regional manager Ray O’Connor said Ringaskiddy was a major zone for development. "We have several hundred acres of land there which are still vacant. If the road was in place it would be very attractive for inward investment, especially as all the other infrastructure is in place there," Mr O’Connor said.

    County manager Martin Riordan said he concurred with the report’s view that upgrading the N28 was of strategic regional importance and is well deserving of national funding.

    He said the council would be in a position to proceed with the project once funding is made available. "It remains a key element in our infrastructure planning for the Cork Metropolitan Region in partnership with Cork City Council," Mr Riordan said.

    This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Thursday, July 01, 2010


    Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/claim-failure-to-upgrade-road-would-cost-euro59bn-123797.html#ixzz10XuiXTbu
    Port to submit revised €50m terminal plan

    THE Port of Cork is to submit a revised plan for a new €50 million container terminal in Ringaskiddy, although not on the same site which was previously refused by Bord Pleanála.

    Two years ago the planning appeals board rejected the port’s plans for a container terminal at the Oysterbank. Now, after reviewing five shortlisted alternatives, the port has decided the ideal location for the terminal will be adjacent to the ferry terminal at Ringaskiddy.

    The port’s chief executive Brendan Keating said the company could also carry out some future operations at Marino Point, but would have to acquire the former IFI site before they could lodge any planning applications there.

    Mr Keating said it was hoped to apply for permission for the cargo terminal during 2012 and, all going according to plan, start construction in early 2104. The terminal would take 14 months to construct. The project represented the first part of a 20-year phased plan to upgrade the port’s handling facilities.

    "After the first phase further developments will follow a business case and capacity needs," he said.

    Mr Keating said that while the Tivoli terminal was still functioning well, it was coming under pressure and a new terminal was needed to deal with the ever increasing size of container ships.

    He acknowledged that the Port of Cork would have to persuade Bord Pleanála to change its mind on Ringaskiddy being proper place for a deep water cargo handling facility.

    The planning appeals board turned down the previous application on a number of grounds. Firstly, it felt too much pressure would be put on the N28 (Cork-Ringaskiddy road) with the number of lorries generated by the project.

    In addition, it was felt that the Jack Lynch Tunnel wouldn’t be able to handle extra traffic and Bord Pleanála also believed a deep water cargo handling facility needed a rail connection.

    "We were very perplexed at the reasons for the refusal and we will have to address that with Bord Pleanála," Mr Keating said.

    He said the National Roads Authority (NRA) had given a commitment to upgrade the N28.

    The NRA has also indicated it is planning a major upgrade of the Jack Lynch Tunnell/Dunkettle roundabout interchange.

    The Port of Cork chief executive acknowledged that while a rail link could be easily created to Marino Point, off the Cork-Cobh line, it was unlikely one would ever be built to Ringaskiddy.

    However, Mr Keating said Ringaskiddy is already associated with considerable port activity and port investment.

    The port authorities will be consulting with customers and stakeholders again on it plans in the coming weeks.

    This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Friday, June 18, 2010


    Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfcwcwqlmhsn/rss2/#ixzz10XvDKyHG


  • #18
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    The Indecon N28 "Cork to World" Report is attached below.


  • #19
    Limerick74
    Registered Users Posts: 468 ✭✭Limerick74


    I see Cork County Council have recently advertised on etenders for Consultants to progress the N28 scheme through the EIA and planning process. Closing date for prequalification is the 6th September.


  • #20
    annfield1978
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 569 ✭✭✭annfield1978


    The prequal states the following

    For the Management and Design team, have undertaken a course introducing the principles of Safety Healh and Welfare at work (Construction) Regulations 2006 - 2013 with particular regard to the service providors duties and other those regulation. The course should be approved by their relevant registration body or in the absence of a registration a professional body appropriate to the service provider in question.

    What does this mean in reality?


  • #21
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    annfield1978 wrote: »
    The prequal states the following

    For the Management and Design team, have undertaken a course introducing the principles of Safety Healh and Welfare at work (Construction) Regulations 2006 - 2013 with particular regard to the service providors duties and other those regulation. The course should be approved by their relevant registration body or in the absence of a registration a professional body appropriate to the service provider in question.

    What does this mean in reality?
    The design team need basic health and safety qualifications.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Good. Fully dualling Bloomfield to Ringaskiddy could achieve the following things.

    1. The future possibility of moving all Port of Cork activities to Ringaskiddy.
    2. Further growth of Ringaskiddy as an industrial zone.
    3. Further growth of Carrigaline as a commuter town.
    4. The possibility of alternative access to Cork Airport via a new road from above Douglas to Cork Airport Roundabout.


  • #23
    Baldilocks
    Registered Users Posts: 114 ✭✭Baldilocks


    Cork, Limerick Foynes and Dublin were all given tier one Port status recently. My understanding of this is that it comes with some European funding. (to develop the port - not the roads).
    The current road is not suitable to be handling the significant HGV traffic that will result from the moving of container traffic from Tivoli down to Ringaskiddy.


  • #24
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    I'm guessing as this is an offline build, they are planning this as HQDC which would potentially give it a 120kph speed limit.

    I wouldn't mind seeing this scheme and the N40 being given motorway status. Too many times I've seen tractors and cyclists on the N40. It's just plain dangerous.


  • #25
    marmurr1916
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭marmurr1916


    Can't new regulations be implemented to ban certain types of users from dual-carriageways (i.e. pedestrians, cyclists, animals, animal-drawn vehicles, agricultural vehicles*, motorbikes/mopeds/other vehicles not capable of at least 60 km/h*)?

    If this was done on all dual-carriageways, the speed limits could be increased to at least 110 km/h, with limits of 120 km/h on suitable HQDC sections.

    I don't think the limit on the N40 will ever be increased to 120 km/h even if it becomes M40. It would be more likely to retain a 100 km/h speed limit, just like the M50.

    AFAIK, electronic signs which would enable variable speed limits to be applied are being installed on the M50. These could be installed on the N40 also.

    There could be scope for variable speed limits, with 100 km/h during daytime hours and 120 km/h overnight (from say 9pm to 6am).

    If suitable regulations were made, the times/speed limits could be varied according to circumstances (traffic levels, road conditions etc).

    *which should also be banned from motorways


  • #26
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    marmurr1916 wrote: »
    Can't new regulations be implemented to ban certain types of users from dual-carriageways (i.e. pedestrians, cyclists, animals, animal-drawn vehicles, agricultural vehicles*, motorbikes/mopeds/other vehicles not capable of at least 60 km/h*)?

    Might as well just reclassify as motorway.

    marmurr1916 wrote: »
    If this was done on all dual-carriageways, the speed limits could be increased to at least 110 km/h, with limits of 120 km/h on suitable HQDC sections.

    I don't think the limit on the N40 will ever be increased to 120 km/h even if it becomes M40. It would be more likely to retain a 100 km/h speed limit, just like the M50.

    AFAIK, electronic signs which would enable variable speed limits to be applied are being installed on the M50. These could be installed on the N40 also.

    There could be scope for variable speed limits, with 100 km/h during daytime hours and 120 km/h overnight (from say 9pm to 6am).

    If suitable regulations were made, the times/speed limits could be varied according to circumstances (traffic levels, road conditions etc).

    *which should also be banned from motorways

    With the N40 being an urban road, I can't see a 120kph limit ever being applied.


  • #27
    marmurr1916
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭marmurr1916


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    Might as well just reclassify as motorway.

    Nope. Learner drivers need somewhere to practice... :)

    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    With the N40 being an urban road, I can't see a 120kph limit ever being applied.

    Just like the M50. Although the possibility of variable speed limits could mean a 120 km/h limit at certain times. If the M50 is suitable for variable speed limits, then so is the N40.


  • #28
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    I'm guessing as this is an offline build, they are planning this as HQDC which would potentially give it a 120kph speed limit.
    It has the hint of industrial estate access road about it.
    I wouldn't mind seeing this scheme and the N40 being given motorway status. Too many times I've seen tractors and cyclists on the N40. It's just plain dangerous.
    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    With the N40 being an urban road, I can't see a 120kph limit ever being applied.

    The N40 isn't suitable to be a motorway or 120km/h - too many substandard junctions, poor vertical and horizontal sight lines, adverse camber, lack of hard shoulders, etc.


  • #29
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    The only substandard junction I can think of is the Bloomfield Junction. And that is only the N40 East - Rochestown junction which is a bit tight.

    The N40 needs to ban cyclists and pedestrians. Simply too dangerous.

    The only place there is a lack of a hard shoulder is on the Douglas flyover and where is there adverse camber on the N40 ?


  • #30
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,963 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    And despite popular rumour the buildings are all well back from the flyover so in the distant future a new flyover is completely possible.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    The Browser
    Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭The Browser


    So has the N28 scheme been taken out of mothballs?


  • #32
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    One thing I cannot understand.

    The section from Bloomfield Interchange to the bridge carrying Maryborough Hill over the N28. Why wasn't this built to dual carriageway standard back in the day.

    I'm not sure if the bridge for Maryborough Hill is wide enough to allow dual carriageway under it. Certainly will be very tight. No chance of a hard shoulder that's for sure.

    The extra spend to have gone this would have been minimal back then.


  • #33
    DerMutt
    Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭DerMutt


    Just saw this on Facebook!
    Carrigdhoun Newspaper
    Cllr Lombard Breaks Huge News For Carrigaline-Ringaskiddy Area.
    Cllr Tim Lombard has welcomed the news that the N28 Motorway is to be built between The Bloomfield Interchange and Ringaskiddy with plans for Compulsory Purchase Orders to begin next year. Cllr Lombard said, "This is a huge investment for the area and will provide massive opportunity for economic growth and jobs both locally and nationally"
    See The Carrigdhoun Newspaper print edition for more in the coming weeks.


  • #34
    annfield1978
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 569 ✭✭✭annfield1978


    Pre Qual for Consultants to review existing EIS and update it was submitted today. Halcrow Barry were the original consultnat


  • #35
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    One thing I cannot understand.

    The section from Bloomfield Interchange to the bridge carrying Maryborough Hill over the N28. Why wasn't this built to dual carriageway standard back in the day.

    I'm not sure if the bridge for Maryborough Hill is wide enough to allow dual carriageway under it. Certainly will be very tight. No chance of a hard shoulder that's for sure.

    The extra spend to have gone this would have been minimal back then.

    I'm pretty sure this section is dual carriageway isn't it?

    wow it isn't! could have sworn it was!


  • #36
    kub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,555 ✭✭✭kub


    corktina wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure this section is dual carriageway isn't it?

    wow it isn't! could have sworn it was!

    There are 2 lanes for climbing from Bloomfield up Mulcan Valley, only a single for descending down it.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    moyners
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 315 ✭✭moyners


    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/green-light-for-200m-ringaskiddy-motorway-248926.html


  • #38
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Excellent news.

    I'd push it on a step further though. Ringaskiddy and Cork Airport are linked via the SRR. The Kinsale Road roundabout it also under significant pressure from the Airport Hill side.

    The solution:

    33xypdu.png

    How much extra would a simple two way road cost if tagged onto the N28 scheme. Now would be the time to do this give junction alterations etc.


  • #39
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    AugustusMinimus, that could be a double edged sword, driving traffic in the wrong direction.


  • #40
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Victor wrote: »
    AugustusMinimus, that could be a double edged sword, driving traffic in the wrong direction.

    My view is

    1. It will take pressure off of the Kinsale Road roundabout.
    2. Puts more traffic through Bloomfield which is well able to handle it due to being freeflow.
    3. Takes pressure off of the only 2 lane section of SRR remaining between Bloomfield and Douglas.
    4. Road network in the area is badly underdeveloped. Would get rid of a lot of local traffic from quite poor roads.


  • #41
    phatmanwc
    Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭phatmanwc


    I have to say, as much of an improvement as it was, it's a pity that a better job wasn't done on the KR interchange. Is it really futureproof? I hope that mistake hasn't been made again, since it would be virtually impossible to implement any further changes down the line.

    One of the original proposals involved an elevated slip road for Airport Hill-bound traffic coming from the east, which would have allowed them to bypass the roundabout altogether; anyone who travels this section at peak times knows how much of a tail-back there can be, and how useful this would have been. Scrapped, needless to say!


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    munchkin_utd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭munchkin_utd


    phatmanwc wrote: »
    I have to say, as much of an improvement as it was, it's a pity that a better job wasn't done on the KR interchange. Is it really futureproof? I hope that mistake hasn't been made again, since it would be virtually impossible to implement any further changes down the line.

    One of the original proposals involved an elevated slip road for Airport Hill-bound traffic coming from the east, which would have allowed them to bypass the roundabout altogether; anyone who travels this section at peak times knows how much of a tail-back there can be, and how useful this would have been. Scrapped, needless to say!
    you wouldnt need a bridge to make a massive improvement.

    the roundabout isnt the problem coming from the airport but the lights and they can only let so many through at a time, and the failing in the design is that theres no dedicated slip (with no lights, but yielding to traffic coming from the roundabout) for westbound traffic
    If you had that slip road westbound, it would remove a dozen or so cars from the queue for the lights at each light change meaning over an hour 100s less cars needing to get through the lights, and thus a substantially lower queue.


  • #43
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    My view is

    1. It will take pressure off of the Kinsale Road roundabout.
    2. Puts more traffic through Bloomfield which is well able to handle it due to being freeflow.
    3. Takes pressure off of the only 2 lane section of SRR remaining between Bloomfield and Douglas.
    4. Road network in the area is badly underdeveloped. Would get rid of a lot of local traffic from quite poor roads.

    Alternatively, it could deliver more Carrigaline and Douglas/Rochestown traffic to to Kinsale Road Roundaabout via the Kinsale Road.
    munchkin_utd wrote: »
    the roundabout isnt the problem coming from the airport but the lights and they can only let so many through at a time
    At peak times, a traffic light controlled junction allows more traffic through than a roundabout only junction.


  • #44
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Victor wrote: »
    Alternatively, it could deliver more Carrigaline and Douglas/Rochestown traffic to to Kinsale Road Roundaabout via the Kinsale Road.

    Considering there will be traffic queues down airport hill and no traffic queues on bloomfield I doubt it.

    All people going from Airport to the Jack Lynch Tunnel and visa versa would use this route taking significant levels of traffic off of the Kinsale Road Roundabout.


  • #45
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Victor wrote: »
    At peak times, a traffic light controlled junction allows more traffic through than a roundabout only junction.

    Often said. However, this doesn't always play out in practice. Removal of the roundabout outside the Dean Rock Bar in Cork caused havoc during morning and evening rush hours.


  • #46
    munchkin_utd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭munchkin_utd


    Victor wrote: »
    At peak times, a traffic light controlled junction allows more traffic through than a roundabout only junction.
    you misinterpreted my point.

    At the moment theres people coming from the airport, who are stopped at the lights/ at the queue for the lights who will NOT even make it as far as the roundabout as they have a slip road onto the dual carraigeway just before even entering the actual roundabout.

    If this westbound traffic which is not heading for the roundabout could be filtered out of the south and eastbound traffic which does go through the roundabout, then theres less folks overall needing to get through the lights as you have removed 1/3 of the traffic (or at least the traffic from 1 of 3 directions).

    costwise, it'd be cheap. Small landworks, 30 or 40m of road foundation and surfacing and an odd sign. No need even for adjustment of traffic lights or addition of a new set on the mini slip road as you could leave westbound traffic to just yield to traffic from the roundabout, and they will have a free run anyhow when traffic from the airport to the roundabout has their green light blocking other oncoming traffic.


  • #47
    crc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 74 ✭✭crc


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    Excellent news.

    I'd push it on a step further though. Ringaskiddy and Cork Airport are linked via the SRR. The Kinsale Road roundabout it also under significant pressure from the Airport Hill side.
    ...
    How much extra would a simple two way road cost if tagged onto the N28 scheme. Now would be the time to do this give junction alterations etc.
    I think that is a good idea, but why not also have a path along your new road from Ringaskiddy to the Airport?
    (I've added what I mean here in orange)
    33xypdu.jpg
    280244.jpg


  • #48
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    crc wrote: »
    I think that is a good idea, but why not also have a path along your new road from Ringaskiddy to the Airport?
    (I've added what I mean here in orange)
    33xypdu.jpg
    280244.jpg

    Sorry, should have drawn it a bit better. But yes, I'd have trumpet or a half stack on the N28 to deal with this link road to the airport.


  • #49
    Carrig1
    Registered Users Posts: 21 ✭Carrig1


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    Considering there will be traffic queues down airport hill and no traffic queues on bloomfield I doubt it.

    All people going from Airport to the Jack Lynch Tunnel and visa versa would use this route taking significant levels of traffic off of the Kinsale Road Roundabout.


    There is also major traffic queues in the morning because of the access road from Maryborough hill joining traffic on the N28. Traffic at a standstill all the way past Carr's hill


  • #50
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    As in queues coming down the sliproad onto the N28 ? I would imagine a lot of the problem here is that at present there is only 1 lane where the sliproad merges with the N28. This will be increased to 2 lanes with the new scheme.


  • #51
    kub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,555 ✭✭✭kub


    Carrig1 wrote: »
    There is also major traffic queues in the morning because of the access road from Maryborough hill joining traffic on the N28. Traffic at a standstill all the way past Carr's hill

    The traffic from Maryborough Hill does not cause that problem, it certainly adds to it though. The problem is further down where the N28 traffic merges with the traffic coming up from the Rochestown Rd.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement