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

Aontachtoir

Middle Man wrote: »

We need a massive overhaul of every aspect of planning in this country, including how objections are handled.  The extra competition that Ireland will now face (Trump's economic policy and Brexit) will hopefully act as the kick up the rear that Irish society so badly needs.  It reminds me of the time when there was a lack of appetite for constructing Dublin's current 10/28 runway back in the 1980's - as the old main runway was cracking, airlines were AFAIK talking about pulling out - well one can guess what happened thereafter.  It serves as a very important lesson regarding the value of infrastructural investment in order to keep pace with ever evolving challenges - social, economic and environmental.

Agreed. Going back to the Apple data centre fiasco, recall that the centre they announced in Denmark at the same time as the one in Athenry is now nearing completion. Why can't we have whichever planning system they use in Denmark?

boardsuser1

Will the taliban use this as their latest excuse in their opposition?

https://twitter.com/annmarie_nova/status/937644564273352704

DoubleJoe7

There I was thinking a moderator had asked people to stop with the name calling, but the usual suspects throwing ad hominem attacks as per usual.

marno21

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

There I was thinking a moderator had asked people to stop with the name calling, but the usual suspects throwing ad hominem attacks as per usual.

Are you going to contribute here or continue giving out?

If you are defending the "Steering Group" so much you might like to explain the disgraceful fabricated fearmongering propaganda being released over the last few days.

DoubleJoe7

marno21 wrote: »

Are you going to contribute here or continue giving out?

If you are defending the "Steering Group" so much you might like to explain the disgraceful fabricated fearmongering propaganda being released over the last few days.

I'm merely pointing out that a moderator requested that people stop name-calling, and that this request has been ignored.

I'm defending no one, only to say that to liken people with genuinely held concerns to militant Islamic fundamentalists is absurd, insulting, and does nothing to encourage contributions from those with a different point of few to the handful who post on this thread frequently.

marno21

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

I'm merely pointing out that a moderator requested that people stop name-calling, and that this request has been ignored.

I'm defending no one, only to say that to liken people with genuinely held concerns to militant Islamic fundamentalists is absurd, insulting, and does nothing to encourage contributions from those with a different point of few to the handful who post on this thread frequently.

Ludo, Golfer50 and others post here arguing against the M28. Please do so if you wish.

If you wish to defend/represent the militant Steering Group, you are welcome to. However you will face quite a lot of questioning from the users here on recent disgraceful behaviour.

This is a infrastructure forum. Not a parochial issues forum. The posters here are majorly pro roads/infrastructure/development. Please don't forget this.

And also, NIMBY is not name calling. The Steering Group are now self confessed NIMBYs

DoubleJoe7

marno21 wrote: »

Ludo, Golfer50 and others post here arguing against the M28. Please do so if you wish.

If you wish to defend/represent the militant Steering Group, you are welcome to. However you will face quite a lot of questioning from the users here on recent disgraceful behaviour.

This is a infrastructure forum. Not a parochial issues forum. The posters here are majorly pro roads/infrastructure/development. Please don't forget this.

And also, NIMBY is not name calling. The Steering Group are now self confessed NIMBYs

Where did I take issue with the phrase "NIMBY"?

But "militant"?

"The Taliban"

That is name calling. And another mod felt is necessary to come into this thread to ask that people stop name-calling - now why do you think that is?

boardsuser1

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

Where did I take issue with the phrase "NIMBY"?

But "militant"?

"The Taliban"

That is name calling. And another mod felt is necessary to come into this thread to ask that people stop name-calling - now why do you think that is?

I disagree with your view that we are name calling.

Where has Militant been used in this thread?

Taliban i have started using recently myself.

Can you tell me which is worse? To describe a bunch of self confessed NIMBY's "The taliban" or for them to dismiss at every opportunity people who wish to discuss anything that is against the ethos of the group?

While we here on this boards thread are in the majority,in favour of getting this road built,others like Ludo and Golfer50 as already mentioned are against it but discuss it constructively.

TheChizler

I'm not getting the Taliban reference, is it an acronym?

boardsuser1

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm not getting the Taliban reference, is it an acronym?

This video may help you understand what they are upto and they admit that the N28 was built AFTER they moved into their houses.

No steering group back then.

Who does the photoshopping for them?

https://www.facebook.com/175111606272101/videos/289180034865257/

DoubleJoe7

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I disagree with your view that we are name calling.

Where has Militant been used in this thread?

Taliban i have started using recently myself.

Can you tell me which is worse? To describe a bunch of self confessed NIMBY's "The taliban" or for them to dismiss at every opportunity people who wish to discuss anything that is against the ethos of the group?

While we here on this boards thread are in the majority,in favour of getting this road built,others like Ludo and Golfer50 as already mentioned are against it but discuss it constructively.

Marno's post, literally the one before mine, is one example of them being called militant.

I've made a few observations of my own on this thread going back months, but I'm reluctant to post here because of the needlessly hostile nature of some posts that contain a level of discourse that wouldn't be accepted on other parts of boards. Same reason why Dan Boyle was reluctant to contribute.

Pointless when people don't think it's namecalling to describe a group of people 'the taliban' because they don't want a motorway in their back garden.

And again, I'll make the point that went ignored - a mod came in here and asked people to stop name calling. Why?

marno21

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

Marno's post, literally the one before mine, is one example of them being called militant.

I've made a few observations of my own on this thread going back months, but I'm reluctant to post here because of the needlessly hostile nature of some posts that contain a level of discourse that wouldn't be accepted on other parts of boards. Same reason why Dan Boyle was reluctant to contribute.

Pointless when people don't think it's namecalling to describe a group of people 'the taliban' because they don't want a motorway in their back garden.

And again, I'll make the point that went ignored - a mod came in here and asked people to stop name calling. Why?

I used the word militant in response to your use of the word militant - they are behaving in such a manner - with them debate is not an option

I've invited you countless times to post here. Is the real reason you won't post here that you have no argument and you are aware that the rubbish the Steering Group is coming out with would get torn to shreds here because it holds no water whatsoever? I'm asking you for the last time to post here - don't post again telling the forum that you don't feel comfortable posting if you have no interest posting

If people don't want a motorway in their back garden fine - don't come onto an infrastructure forum and expect any form of support. This nonsense about chemical spills and jack knifing is not going to go down well here for good reason

This is my final post on thread about this issue - please discuss further in PM with me or someone else

DoubleJoe7

marno21 wrote: »

I've invited you countless times to post here. Is the real reason you won't post here that you have no argument and you are aware that the rubbish the Steering Group is coming out with would get torn to shreds here because it holds no water whatsoever? I'm asking you for the last time to post here - don't post again telling the forum that you don't feel comfortable posting if you have no interest posting

I have posted several times on this thread on issues such as noise, pollution and traffic issues. Torn to shreds? I'd suggest namecalling is the last resort of someone without a decent rebuttal.

If people don't want a motorway in their back garden fine - don't come onto an infrastructure forum and expect any form of support.

The thread title is " Should the M28 Cork-Ringaskiddy motorway be built?"

People are entitled to come on here and say 'no' if that is their belief. They should be able to do so without being subjected to namecalling.

I'll ask again; why did a mod feel the need to come into this thread to request that people stop namecalling if there hasn't been a problem with it?


As for the road itself, I've seen nothing to ease concerns. The new route into Ringaskiddy seems ridiculous given the 2008 proposal was widely accepted by people in the town.

TII's concession that the can only try to limit the noise to 70 decibels should set off alarm bells with an Bord Pleanala. 60 is the recommended limit, and TII are already conceding they'll miss that.

Bloomfield will not be able to handle the amount of traffic coming off it into the n40 if projections are correct. Another route would alleviate the traffic on the N28, easing up demand at Bloomfield.

marno21

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

I have posted several times on this thread on issues such as noise, pollution and traffic issues. Torn to shreds? I'd suggest namecalling is the last resort of someone without a decent rebuttal.



The thread title is " Should the M28 Cork-Ringaskiddy motorway be built?"

People are entitled to come on here and say 'no' if that is their belief. They should be able to do so without being subjected to namecalling.

I'll ask again; why did a mod feel the need to come into this thread to request that people stop namecalling if there hasn't been a problem with it?


As for the road itself, I've seen nothing to ease concerns. The new route into Ringaskiddy seems ridiculous given the 2008 proposal was widely accepted by people in the town.

TII's concession that the can only try to limit the noise to 70 decibels should set off alarm bells with an Bord Pleanala. 60 is the recommended limit, and TII are already conceding they'll miss that.

Bloomfield will not be able to handle the amount of traffic coming off it into the n40 if projections are correct. Another route would alleviate the traffic on the N28, easing up demand at Bloomfield.

I was talking specifically about the M28 Steering Group - not concerned people. The Steering Group aren't interested in looking after people, they are concerned with stopping the motorway at all costs. I am fully in favour of every single measure being implemented to take care of residents. Many concerns have been raised here in the past that were somewhat alleviated. Concerns such as chemical spills, dust, emissions etc aren't really relevant because they aren't limited to the M28 itself.

Regarding route, I think the original route has its merits too, it provides better connectivity to Loughbeg and it doesn't add much to the length of the scheme.

If there are houses that are too close to the motorway they should be CPO'd and knocked. It would be far cheaper and we get to built on the right route. There are houses on the alternative routes too.

Regarding route, may I ask what your preferred alternative route is?

Golfer50

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

More of the same scaremongering.

https://www.facebook.com/175111606272101/photos/pcb.381920285591231/381918852258041/?type=3&theater

If you think this is scaremongering ? . .
These houses are at Rowan Hill and will suffer because of the alignment of the new Mount Oval diverge. The road alignment is seen on EIS drawing GE0001 and the Cross Section Ch. 1005, though this does not show the full impact. If you check Fig 16.4.c you will see that the stated effect on the residences shown in this mock up is "moderate to major" in the short term. They are to lose the planting and green amenity area bordering their houses. I don't know what the houses across the valley are.

This is image was displayed at the hearing and the landscaping expert said it wasn't accurate, not because of distances to road or anything but because there will be replacement greenery planted!
So if you weren't scared by this it may be because you are not living at Rowan Hill.

boardsuser1

Golfer50 wrote: »

If you think this is scaremongering ? . .
These houses are at Rowan Hill and will suffer because of the alignment of the new Mount Oval diverge. The road alignment is seen on EIS drawing GE0001 and the Cross Section Ch. 1005, though this does not show the full impact. If you check Fig 16.4.c you will see that the stated effect on the residences shown in this mock up is "moderate to major" in the short term. They are to lose the planting and green amenity area bordering their houses. I don't know what the houses across the valley are.

This is image was displayed at the hearing and the landscaping expert said it wasn't accurate, not because of distances to road or anything but because there will be greenery planted!
So if you weren't scared by this it may be because you are not living at Rowan Hill.

I know Rowan hill very well. The view of the city is very nice admittedly.

In relation to the mock up photo and the real one, you can just about make out something on the left of the real thing,i'll have to go through the E.I.S report later on once the kids are gone to bed.

The part you mentioned isn't something i recall off the top of my head but i have read through the report previously.

Who is designing those images? The steering group or someone on their behalf?

Golfer50

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I know Rowan hill very well. The view of the city is very nice admittedly.

In relation to the mock up photo and the real one, you can just about make out something on the left of the real thing,i'll have to go through the E.I.S report later on once the kids are gone to bed.

The part you mentioned isn't something i recall off the top of my head but i have read through the report previously.

Who is designing those images? The steering group or someone on their behalf?

Yes, now I see it. Looks like the back of Lissadel but with Mulcon Valley trees removed. I don't know who is doing the mock ups.

markodaly

Golfer50 wrote: »

Yes, now I see it. Looks like the back of Lissadel but with Mulcon Valley trees removed. I don't know who is doing the mock ups.

No doubt some expert they have hired, a transition year student.

Baldilocks

For all those against this project - can you please discuss the points below:

1) The route chosen is the most efficient, it is the shortest distance (without going point to point directly), and thus it will be the least expensive (saving the taxpayer millions, using the least amount of construction materials (a boon for those who have environmental concerns, and result in shorter journeys in the long run - again a positive for the environmentalists.

2) The bloomfield interchange is the junction best able to take the traffic (PLEASE bear in mind that the Jack Lynch Tunnel will no longer be signalised before the M28 is finished). The Kinsale road roundabout is already above capacity, so dumping more traffic there will hardly work.

3) There will be some upheaval during construction - the inhabitants of the Mulcon valley are not the only people who will suffer. There will undoubtedly be some upheaval to those using the road daily also (25,000 vehicles).

4) Mount Oval, should never have had the slip road into it, and the proposal to have a proper junction at the top of the hill, was correct. Retaining this entrance is insanity (but apparently politically expedient - an outstanding reason to have traffic going into a housing estate at 100kmh, though many are not - I've seen some ludicrous manoevres from the overtaking lane southbound and into Mount Oval - Nascar territory)

5) Long term, cars and trucks will be electric (from 2025, you will not be able to buy an internal combustion engine vehicle in the Netherlands, 2030 in Germany), battery technology is advancing at an astonishing rate. So the numbers of petrol/diesel engines will be dropping dramatically, thus pollution and noise will reduce in the long term, even if traffic volumes increase.

6) As previously stated, the needs of the many are more important than the 'preferences' of the few. If you have an issue with the new road - move. This road has been on the cards for many years. Routes were being discussed 15yrs ago, and they have not really changed much since (outside of the route revisions near Ringaskiddy). Why should the few dictate to the many (hardly a core principle of democracy)

DoubleJoe7

marno21 wrote: »

I was talking specifically about the M28 Steering Group - not concerned people. The Steering Group aren't interested in looking after people, they are concerned with stopping the motorway at all costs. I am fully in favour of every single measure being implemented to take care of residents. Many concerns have been raised here in the past that were somewhat alleviated. Concerns such as chemical spills, dust, emissions etc aren't really relevant because they aren't limited to the M28 itself.

Regarding route, I think the original route has its merits too, it provides better connectivity to Loughbeg and it doesn't add much to the length of the scheme.

If there are houses that are too close to the motorway they should be CPO'd and knocked. It would be far cheaper and we get to built on the right route. There are houses on the alternative routes too.

Regarding route, may I ask what your preferred alternative route is?

My preferred route is the one that goes west, linking to the airport. It is a more expensive option, but it is one that disrupts fewer people, but crucially is the better option from a traffic point of view. It will alleviate some of the traffic problems on the N28.

Upgrading the N28 will cause more traffic problems than it solves. Yes, it will provide a dual carriageway, but I fear this will lead to an "induced demand" situation that will see more traffic use a road that terminates at junctions ill-equipped to handle it.

There are many examples of road networks that believe adding more lanes will solve problems when in fact they are only exacerbated.

The EIS for this project says "The N40 and northern sections of the N28 are at/close to their practical capacity, the peak flows are at their maximum and the peak periods extend in terms of length of time."

Look what it says about the existing situation heading northbound to Bloomfield:

" The  reason  for  the  extended  journey  times  and  slow  vehicle  speeds  is  the  level  of  congestion  on  the  single  lane  northbound.  This  congestion  can  be  as  a  result  of  the  delays  joining  the  N40  at  the  Bloomfield Interchange  and  the  inter‐weaving  of  traffic  from  Rochestown  Road.  "

I drive through Bloomfield every day. Traffic slows to a crawl either heading westbound, where there are two lanes, or east where there is only one.

There are no plans to upgrade Bloomfield. The council want to build a motorway, encourage more traffic onto it, but service it with an interchange that currently can't adequately cope with the demand put upon it by a national road.

What will happen is the slip road into Maryborough Hill will become a release valve. Northbound traffic backed up into Bloomfield will come off into Maryborough instead.

I have other concerns around this - noise pollution is a significant one for me. I believe that is a fair concern to have, but I understand it is dismissed with accusations of 'NIMBYism' on here. But that aside, I genuinely believe, as outlined above, this road project is the wrong way to go about what is hoped it will achieve.

DoubleJoe7

Baldilocks wrote: »

6) As previously stated, the needs of the many are more important than the 'preferences' of the few. If you have an issue with the new road - move. This road has been on the cards for many years. Routes were being discussed 15yrs ago, and they have not really changed much since (outside of the route revisions near Ringaskiddy). Why should the few dictate to the many (hardly a core principle of democracy)

The High Court has recently ruled that “a right to an environment that is consistent with the human dignity and wellbeing of citizens at large is an essential condition for the fulfilment of all human rights”

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/environment-a-legal-milestone-1.3307113

Can you point to any constitutional basis for your assertion that "the needs of the many are more important than the 'preferences' of the few?"

Aontachtoir

Regarding the planning nightmare ahead for this badly-needed upgrade - the Athenry saga continues. Two lone protestors have held up this billion-euro investment for nearly three years now after losing at the county council, ABP, the high court (twice, at the initial appeal and the request for referral to the Court of Appeal), and have now sent it to the Supreme Court. No matter how many times they lose the case, the system allows them to continue delaying infrastructure, jobs, and investment, and waste important court time with no penalty. https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2017/1205/925069-apple-athenry/

The planning system in this country is a complete disaster. Get set for years of appeals if ABP give the M28 the go-ahead, as they should.

Middle Man

Well obviously, Ireland is not open for business...

AugustusMinimus

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

marno21 wrote: »

I was talking specifically about the M28 Steering Group - not concerned people. The Steering Group aren't interested in looking after people, they are concerned with stopping the motorway at all costs. I am fully in favour of every single measure being implemented to take care of residents. Many concerns have been raised here in the past that were somewhat alleviated. Concerns such as chemical spills, dust, emissions etc aren't really relevant because they aren't limited to the M28 itself.

Regarding route, I think the original route has its merits too, it provides better connectivity to Loughbeg and it doesn't add much to the length of the scheme.

If there are houses that are too close to the motorway they should be CPO'd and knocked. It would be far cheaper and we get to built on the right route. There are houses on the alternative routes too.

Regarding route, may I ask what your preferred alternative route is?

My preferred route is the one that goes west, linking to the airport. It is a more expensive option, but it is one that disrupts fewer people, but crucially is the better option from a traffic point of view. It will alleviate some of the traffic problems on the N28.

Upgrading the N28 will cause more traffic problems than it solves. Yes, it will provide a dual carriageway, but I fear this will lead to an "induced demand" situation that will see more traffic use a road that terminates at junctions ill-equipped to handle it.

There are many examples of road networks that believe adding more lanes will solve problems when in fact they are only exacerbated.

The EIS for this project says "The N40 and northern sections of the N28 are at/close to their practical capacity, the peak flows are at their maximum and the peak periods extend in terms of length of time."

Look what it says about the existing situation heading northbound to Bloomfield:

" The  reason  for  the  extended  journey  times  and  slow  vehicle  speeds  is  the  level  of  congestion  on  the  single  lane  northbound.  This  congestion  can  be  as  a  result  of  the  delays  joining  the  N40  at  the  Bloomfield Interchange  and  the  inter‐weaving  of  traffic  from  Rochestown  Road.  "

I drive through Bloomfield every day. Traffic slows to a crawl either heading westbound, where there are two lanes, or east where there is only one.

There are no plans to upgrade Bloomfield. The council want to build a motorway, encourage more traffic onto it, but service it with an interchange that currently can't adequately cope with the demand put upon it by a national road.

What will happen is the slip road into Maryborough Hill will become a release valve. Northbound traffic backed up into Bloomfield will come off into Maryborough instead.

I have other concerns around this - noise pollution is a significant one for me. I believe that is a fair concern to have, but I understand it is dismissed with accusations of 'NIMBYism' on here. But that aside, I genuinely believe, as outlined above, this road project is the wrong way to go about what is hoped it will achieve.

1. Bloomfield has a much, much higher capacity than Kinsale Roundabout which sees traffic queuing on all arms every single day. Much worse than Bloomfield where traffic doesn’t actually queue very much.

2. Bloomfield is being upgraded for N28 to N40 West.

3. What do you propose to do to the Kinssle Roundabout to allow the motorway to access it? There is very limited space and the junction is way above capacity as is. It would be chaos with more traffic. No one would use it.

DoubleJoe7

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

1. Bloomfield has a much, much higher capacity than Kinsale Roundabout which sees traffic queuing on all arms every single day. Much worse than Bloomfield where traffic doesn’t actually queue very much.

2. Bloomfield is being upgraded for N28 to N40 West.

3. What do you propose to do to the Kinssle Roundabout to allow the motorway to access it? There is very limited space and the junction is way above capacity as is. It would be chaos with more traffic. No one would use it.

Westbound is already two lanes, any changes to it are cosmetic. Eastbound - catering for traffic heading to Dublin and others, remains a single lane that goes around a deep curve to merge onto the N40.

And as for trafifc not queuing much at Bloomfield - as someone who drives it every day I'll have to disagree with you there, as does the EIS.

Kevwoody

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

Westbound is already two lanes, any changes to it are cosmetic. Eastbound - catering for traffic heading to Dublin and others, remains a single lane that goes around a deep curve to merge onto the N40.

And as for trafifc not queuing much at Bloomfield - as someone who drives it every day I'll have to disagree with you there, as does the EIS.

And what about your alternative? The Kinsale road roundabout. Are you going to answer this question or just pick holes in other people's arguments?

boardsuser1

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

Westbound is already two lanes, any changes to it are cosmetic. Eastbound - catering for traffic heading to Dublin and others, remains a single lane that goes around a deep curve to merge onto the N40.

And as for trafifc not queuing much at Bloomfield - as someone who drives it every day I'll have to disagree with you there, as does the EIS.

Outside morning/evening rush hour or an R.T.C there is hardly ever traffic backed up in and around bloomfield.

And i drive along there weekly,depending on the manifest it might be daily.

Do you not think that the eastbound traffic will be reduced once the Dunkettle interchange is opened, thus easing problems in bloomfield?

AugustusMinimus

DoubleJoe7 wrote: »

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

1. Bloomfield has a much, much higher capacity than Kinsale Roundabout which sees traffic queuing on all arms every single day. Much worse than Bloomfield where traffic doesn’t actually queue very much.

2. Bloomfield is being upgraded for N28 to N40 West.

3. What do you propose to do to the Kinssle Roundabout to allow the motorway to access it? There is very limited space and the junction is way above capacity as is. It would be chaos with more traffic. No one would use it.

Westbound is already two lanes, any changes to it are cosmetic. Eastbound - catering for traffic heading to Dublin and others, remains a single lane that goes around a deep curve to merge onto the N40.

And as for trafifc not queuing much at Bloomfield - as someone who drives it every day I'll have to disagree with you there, as does the EIS.

As a person who uses Bloomfield multiple times every day, I certainly don’t agree with you.

The backing up of traffic going N28 to N40 east has nothing to do with the junction and is caused by traffic backing up from Dunkettle, which of course is being upgraded before the M28 will open.

Golfer50

Baldilocks, you make some points but . .

Baldilocks wrote: »

The route chosen is the most efficient, it is the shortest distance (without going point to point directly), and thus it will be the least expensive (saving the taxpayer millions, using the least amount of construction materials . . . .

So if these are your only criteria, fine. But if you were interested in sustainable development with due regard to the human environment maybe not.

Baldilocks wrote: »

The bloomfield interchange is the junction best able to take the traffic (PLEASE bear in mind that the Jack Lynch Tunnel will no longer be signalised

There are issues at Bloomfield going West and East, not all tunnel related.

Baldilocks wrote: »

The Kinsale road roundabout is already above capacity, so dumping more traffic there will hardly work.

Agreed. I wouldn't suggest Kinsale Road as an end point.

Baldilocks wrote: »

Mount Oval, should never have had the slip road into it,

but it is obviously very important to the people living there. Allowing such a large concentration of houses to be built without proper access/exit was crazy. Without this access residents would have had to negotiate Rochestown Road and Clarkes Hill.

Baldilocks wrote: »

I've seen some ludicrous manoevres from the overtaking lane southbound and into Mount Oval

There are crazy manoeuvres at most off ramps I've ever driven on.

Baldilocks wrote: »

Why should the few dictate to the many (hardly a core principle of democracy)

Oh my. So no Disability Act, no thirty fourth Amendment to the Constitution etc etc?
There are dictator types on both sides of the M28 debate! The "undemocratic" thing for me is that people engaging with the statutory planning process are being portrayed here as doing something wrong!

DoubleJoe7

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

As a person who uses Bloomfield multiple times every day, I certainly don’t agree with you.

The backing up of traffic going N28 to N40 east has nothing to do with the junction and is caused by traffic backing up from Dunkettle, which of course is being upgraded before the M28 will open.

I disagree - the slow single lane eastbound brings any string of traffic to a crawl, and this will only get worse with more traffic on it. This morning I was doing around 30kmph coming into Bloomfield because of a line of cars going eastbound, and this was after the morning rush hour.

There doesn't need to be a build up on the N40 for this to take place - though at peak times this will exacerbate it. Even with the Dunkettle works (which some have warned will be an improvement but not the panacea promised) a busy day at Mahon Point, a crash reducing the lane etc etc will make it harder and slower to get off the M28.