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]

2456744

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    no I'm saying the cost isn't necessarily the same for a HQDC and a Motorway

    As regards the M20 as I stated the section North of Rathduff was to include a new parallel road alongside and thus is more expensive than if just a HQDC was built. The section you talk of would need a new alternative route as the original road is not fit for purpose and some way from the current route.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,749 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    Isambard wrote: »
    no I'm saying the cost isn't necessarily the same for a HQDC and a Motorway

    As regards the M20 as I stated the section North of Rathduff was to include a new parallel road alongside and thus is more expensive than if just a HQDC was built. The section you talk of would need a new alternative route as the original road is not fit for purpose and some way from the current route.

    Actually only the Croom bypass, which was to be upgraded to motorway, needed an alternative route. The current N20 was to be the alternative route for the rest of the scheme.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    how will you do that on the section mentioned where it will be online?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭boardsuser1


    Kevwoody wrote: »
    What other motorway are you talking about?

    The long awaited M20 most likely.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    Actually only the Croom bypass, which was to be upgraded to motorway, needed an alternative route. The current N20 was to be the alternative route for the rest of the scheme.

    the entire motorway from Blarney to halfway from Rathduff to Mallow was planned to be on line and a new "N20" will be built alongside. The plans were posted the other day on the N20 thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭Vanquished


    Isambard wrote: »
    the entire motorway from Blarney to halfway from Rathduff to Mallow was planned to be on line and a new "N20" will be built alongside. The plans were posted the other day on the N20 thread.

    It was planned to utilise the existing N20 from Blarney to the Burnfort turn off as an online upgrade actually.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    that's what I said. An alternative road for non motorway traffic will be necessary alongside, supporting my point that a motorway is often more expensive than an HQDC


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,015 ✭✭✭Kevwoody


    Isambard wrote: »
    that's what I said. An alternative road for non motorway traffic will be necessary alongside, supporting my point that a motorway is often more expensive than an HQDC


    But the EU funding is for a Motorway, not a HQDC, so it's a non point anyway.

    It's either a motorway or nothing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭Vanquished


    Isambard wrote: »
    that's what I said. An alternative road for non motorway traffic will be necessary alongside, supporting my point that a motorway is often more expensive than an HQDC

    You said from Rathduff to Mallow. That was incorrect.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    Vanquished wrote: »
    You said from Rathduff to Mallow. That was incorrect.

    "from Blarney to halfway from Rathduff to Mallow " is what I said!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21



    MOD:

    It's one thing debating about what you want and don't want, it's another thing debating whether facts are facts or not. So lets establish a few facts here.

    1. The original 2009/10 M20 plan invisaged a dualling of the Croom bypass from the existing L1427 turnoff to the GSJ. This included the construction of a distributor road west of Croom as an alternative route because the existing route through Croom is quite narrow and generally unsuitable. As part of this plan, the existing N20/R516 junction would be shut and a new junction opened further north, which would tie in with a planned N21 Adare bypass. As the N21 Adare bypass has been deleted in favour of a new route north of the town, this will need total remodelling in the new M20 plan.

    2. There was a plan for an upgrade of the New Mallow Road south of the Burnfort turnoff. The exact routing can be seen here: http://www.corkrdo.ie/files/M20_Cork_Limerick_Motorway%20Scheme_Preliminary%20Design_June_2009/handout_01_02.pdf

    3. The N28 upgrade south of Carrs Hill has got to be motorway to qualify for EU funding. An upgrade of the existing road would require significant CPOing and would not be viable considering the fact that they would miss out on the EU funding. There is no debate as to whether Ringaskiddy-Carrs Hill will be motorway. It's been decided it will



    Debate is welcome but debating whether facts are facts or not is pointless.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    clearly shown , for instance, is the "eastern parallel road" which would not necessarily be needed if this were HQDC rather than Motorway. Thus a Motorway and an HQDC don't necessarily cost the same as has been claimed. Thus the N28 could be regarded as wasteful if built as a Motorway,

    Your question was "should it be built" , if there are just yes and no answers, then I'm saying no. But it's just my opinion


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,534 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Isambard, a few issues, some already noted by myself about what the M28 needs to be built with an alternative route.

    1. The current route of the N28 is simply not suitable to be expanded into a HQDC N28. The route is too hilly in places with a number of areas where the corner radius would simply be too tight.

    2. There are a huge number of houses on the current N28. Should all of these houses be CPO'ed and demolished ?

    3. The current village of Shanbally is on the N28. This entire village would required CPO'ing and being demolished.

    4. If on-line build, the current Old Carriagline Road would terminate on a HQDC. This is not acceptable for pedestrians and cyclists alike.

    5. The Ballinrea Road, The L6477 and about a further 8 local roads terminate on the N28. These roads would either have to be permanently blocked on one end or full access would have to be granted to the HQDC N28. This is not acceptable in either sense given pedestrian and cyclists needs. Also, this would be terrible for local residents.

    6. The plan is to reclaim the current N28 to allow further development of Douglas, Maryborough and Moneygurney. This would not be possible with an online build.

    7. Their are huge plans for the local road network, a lot of which will use the old N28 to allow better local traffic movements in the area. No longer possible with an online build.

    8. Having an alternative route, increases the capacity of traffic movements in the area and also provides a fail safe route in the case of traffic accidents etc.

    9. I do not know of a single HQDC built in Ireland without any alternative route. Could you name a few ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 667 ✭✭✭BelfastVanMan


    Isambard, a few issues, some already noted by myself about what the M28 needs to be built with an alternative route.

    1. The current route of the N28 is simply not suitable to be expanded into a HQDC N28. The route is too hilly in places with a number of areas where the corner radius would simply be too tight.

    2. There are a huge number of houses on the current N28. Should all of these houses be CPO'ed and demolished ?

    3. The current village of Shanbally is on the N28. This entire village would required CPO'ing and being demolished.

    4. If on-line build, the current Old Carriagline Road would terminate on a HQDC. This is not acceptable for pedestrians and cyclists alike.

    5. The Ballinrea Road, The L6477 and about a further 8 local roads terminate on the N28. These roads would either have to be permanently blocked on one end or full access would have to be granted to the HQDC N28. This is not acceptable in either sense given pedestrian and cyclists needs. Also, this would be terrible for local residents.

    6. The plan is to reclaim the current N28 to allow further development of Douglas, Maryborough and Moneygurney. This would not be possible with an online build.

    7. Their are huge plans for the local road network, a lot of which will use the old N28 to allow better local traffic movements in the area. No longer possible with an online build.

    8. Having an alternative route, increases the capacity of traffic movements in the area and also provides a fail safe route in the case of traffic accidents etc.

    9. I do not know of a single HQDC built in Ireland without any alternative route. Could you name a few ?

    The N1, between junctions 16
    and 18.


  • Registered Users Posts: 667 ✭✭✭BelfastVanMan


    Isambard, a few issues, some already noted by myself about what the M28 needs to be built with an alternative route.

    1. The current route of the N28 is simply not suitable to be expanded into a HQDC N28. The route is too hilly in places with a number of areas where the corner radius would simply be too tight.

    2. There are a huge number of houses on the current N28. Should all of these houses be CPO'ed and demolished ?

    3. The current village of Shanbally is on the N28. This entire village would required CPO'ing and being demolished.

    4. If on-line build, the current Old Carriagline Road would terminate on a HQDC. This is not acceptable for pedestrians and cyclists alike.

    5. The Ballinrea Road, The L6477 and about a further 8 local roads terminate on the N28. These roads would either have to be permanently blocked on one end or full access would have to be granted to the HQDC N28. This is not acceptable in either sense given pedestrian and cyclists needs. Also, this would be terrible for local residents.

    6. The plan is to reclaim the current N28 to allow further development of Douglas, Maryborough and Moneygurney. This would not be possible with an online build.

    7. Their are huge plans for the local road network, a lot of which will use the old N28 to allow better local traffic movements in the area. No longer possible with an online build.

    8. Having an alternative route, increases the capacity of traffic movements in the area and also provides a fail safe route in the case of traffic accidents etc.

    9. I do not know of a single HQDC built in Ireland without any alternative route. Could you name a few ?

    The N1, between junctions 16
    and 18.

    Correction...between 18 and 20.
    My apoligies


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,534 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Isambard, a few issues, some already noted by myself about what the M28 needs to be built with an alternative route.

    1. The current route of the N28 is simply not suitable to be expanded into a HQDC N28. The route is too hilly in places with a number of areas where the corner radius would simply be too tight.

    2. There are a huge number of houses on the current N28. Should all of these houses be CPO'ed and demolished ?

    3. The current village of Shanbally is on the N28. This entire village would required CPO'ing and being demolished.

    4. If on-line build, the current Old Carriagline Road would terminate on a HQDC. This is not acceptable for pedestrians and cyclists alike.

    5. The Ballinrea Road, The L6477 and about a further 8 local roads terminate on the N28. These roads would either have to be permanently blocked on one end or full access would have to be granted to the HQDC N28. This is not acceptable in either sense given pedestrian and cyclists needs. Also, this would be terrible for local residents.

    6. The plan is to reclaim the current N28 to allow further development of Douglas, Maryborough and Moneygurney. This would not be possible with an online build.

    7. Their are huge plans for the local road network, a lot of which will use the old N28 to allow better local traffic movements in the area. No longer possible with an online build.

    8. Having an alternative route, increases the capacity of traffic movements in the area and also provides a fail safe route in the case of traffic accidents etc.

    9. I do not know of a single HQDC built in Ireland without any alternative route. Could you name a few ?

    The N1, between junctions 16
    and 18.

    Correction...between 18 and 20.
    My apoligies

    What about the old sections of the R132?


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    What about the old sections of the R132?
    Is it Google maps you're looking at?

    Between Junction 19 and 20, the old N1 was subsumed into the new N1 HQDC. The road marked R132 on Google Maps is only an old boreen that connected J19 and J20 general areas and has been incorrectly labelled as an alternative route, of which it's not suitable. The old road reappears at J20 and becomes the B113 at the border. The road would have to lose motorway restrictions at J20 anyway for the border crossing so it's not an issue, and in 99% of cases in Ireland there is a clear distinct alternative route for motorways/HQDCs.

    In the case of the old N28, the old road will be used for local access and general local traffic. Dualling the existing road would not be an option.


  • Registered Users Posts: 375 ✭✭DoubleJoe7


    I think it's unfair to dismiss genuinely held concerns as "invalid" or "scaremongering.

    Sections of the existing N28 comes within 20 metres of some people's back gardens, they're entitled to a certain level of quality of life and building a motorway that close to someone's home is bound to have a negative impact in terms of noise pollution for a start.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    That article from the Echo mentions:
    The M28 Steering Group, which is set to host next week’s meeting, said that the closure of existing slip roads onto the N28 will result in significant gridlock throughout Maryborough Hill and Rochestown.

    What slip roads does this refer to?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    the one from Maryborough Hill would be a good bet . The only other I can think of is the Mount Oval one which if memory serves is off only


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,534 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    They are adding a whole new road between Maryborough Hill and the Old Carrigaline Road to facilitate this lost movement.

    In fact, the new Carr's Hill interchange will give Maryborough Hill full movements with the new M28 which should significantly help with traffic in the area.

    This Steering Group are only looking for problems which don't exist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    In fact, the new Carr's Hill interchange will give Maryborough Hill full movements with the new M28 which should significantly help with traffic in the area.

    I guess that depends which area you mean. For example, will this new access to the M28 in both directions potentially increase traffic taking Coach Hill to get to or from it? This is a ridiculously narrow road in one place with no footpath. Yet is used a lot by pedestrians and kids going to.coming from school. It is already dangerous to walk there as some morons don't even slow down for the narrow section. Any increase in traffic on this road IS dangerous.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,534 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Ludo wrote: »
    In fact, the new Carr's Hill interchange will give Maryborough Hill full movements with the new M28 which should significantly help with traffic in the area.

    I guess that depends which area you mean. For example, will this new access to the M28 in both directions potentially increase traffic taking Coach Hill to get to or from it? This is a ridiculously narrow road in one place with no footpath. Yet is used a lot by pedestrians and kids going to.coming from school. It is already dangerous to walk there as some morons don't even slow down for the narrow section. Any increase in traffic on this road IS dangerous.

    Agreed. Traffic increase here won't be near as bad as it could have been due to the link road to Carr's Hill interchange going through Maryborough Ridge now not happening.

    There are plans for the widening and installation of paths / traffic calming on both Clarkes and Coach Hill similar to done on Moneygurney Road. IMO getting this done should be a much higher priority as that narrow section on Coach Hill is dangerous already.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    Agreed. Traffic increase here won't be near as bad as it could have been due to the link road to Carr's Hill interchange going through Maryborough Ridge now not happening.

    Yeah...the fact this is not being done now does probably mean Coach Hill will not see an increase in traffic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭boardsuser1


    Ludo wrote: »
    Yeah...the fact this is not being done now does probably mean Coach Hill will not see an increase in traffic.

    That place is bad enough without any extra traffic, along with Clarkes hill.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,534 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    KC161 wrote: »
    Ludo wrote: »
    Yeah...the fact this is not being done now does probably mean Coach Hill will not see an increase in traffic.

    That place is bad enough without any extra traffic, along with Clarkes hill.

    Clarkes Hill is fine. It's the junction at the bottom which is the problem. The upgraded Carrs Hill interchange would probably reduce traffic at this junction though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭boardsuser1


    Clarkes Hill is fine. It's the junction at the bottom which is the problem. The upgraded Carrs Hill interchange would probably reduce traffic at this junction though.

    The meeting of the locals is taking place in the Rochestown Park Hotel tomorrow.

    Are any CPO's required in that area or is it all purely to do with noise/air pollution?

    The government will force this through anyway i recking due to the port of Cork being relocated.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    KC161 wrote: »
    The meeting of the locals is taking place in the Rochestown Park Hotel tomorrow.

    Are any CPO's required in that area or is it all purely to do with noise/air pollution?

    The government will force this through anyway i recking due to the port of Cork being relocated.
    The CPO hasn't been published yet as the final scheme has not been publicly displayed. CPOs along the mainline N28 between Carrs Hill and the N40 will be minimal.

    The meeting tomorrow is more about the proposed destruction of Douglas and Rochestown and the guaranteed respiratory illnesses and sleepless nights.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭boardsuser1


    marno21 wrote: »
    The CPO hasn't been published yet as the final scheme has not been publicly displayed. CPOs along the mainline N28 between Carrs Hill and the N40 will be minimal.

    The meeting tomorrow is more about the proposed destruction of Douglas and Rochestown and the guaranteed respiratory illnesses and sleepless nights.

    No doubting that.

    Just to compare this with the now M8, when they were building that motorway, was there s much opposition to it as there is to the M28?

    I can't remember much except for Denis Dineen of Watergrasshill seeking to have the bypass of the town restored after it was effectively removed in 2006.

    Is it a case that the ECJ could get involved here?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    KC161 wrote: »
    No doubting that.

    Just to compare this with the now M8, when they were building that motorway, was there s much opposition to it as there is to the M28?

    I can't remember much except for Denis Dineen of Watergrasshill seeking to have the bypass of the town restored after it was effectively removed in 2006.

    Is it a case that the ECJ could get involved here?
    Any part of the M8 in particular? Before my time though.

    Watergrasshill has an L road bypass effectively, between the northern element and the southern element of the M8 interchange. It's more than a lot of places have.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement