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

boardsuser1

Baldilocks wrote: »

while I certainly don't agree with the name-calling, nor condone, it is hardly unreasonable to expect members and supporters of the M28 steering group to cease engaging in spreading lies, and refusing to tolerate reasonable debate.
The photoshopped images that have been presented recently are a disgrace - using a picture from an accident in 1978 in Spain, is shambolic.
Passion is not substitute for logic, and if you can't win an debate using reason - it's time concede, preferably with a bit of grace

Well said Baldilocks.

In 10 days time we'll hopefully have a positive decision to attempt to put the issue to bed.

A vast amount of their effort is focusing on negativity with HGV's yet nothing mirroring what they have ever presented has reared its head on the N28.

boardsuser1

This upgrade can't come fast enough.

https://twitter.com/CorkSafetyAlert/status/940318438341345286

marno21

danny004 wrote: »

Thanks Moderators ,for pointing out not lowering the standard and not using childish group names that adds nothing to the debate. I assume this directive is to be applied to other moderators who have used names like Taliban who should know better.

This is your first post on this thread. Can you try adding to the debate if you have an interest.

No one on thread has given out about objectors from Ringaskiddy. The M28 Steering Group, whom I've referred to as the Taliban, don't care about Ringaskiddy.

danny004

I dont agree with the steering group nor do i agree with them personally or collectively being called anything other than the ad hoc name they have given themselves.

Golfer50

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

This upgrade can't come fast enough.

https://twitter.com/CorkSafetyAlert/status/940318438341345286

And a large amount of extra M28 traffic will help alleviate the Westbound N40 mess??????
Interesting.

Oops, post 666👹

boardsuser1

Golfer50 wrote: »

And a large amount of extra M28 traffic will help alleviate the Westbound N40 mess??????
Interesting.

Oops, post 666👹

Dunkettle interchange will be done by then

Golfer50

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

Golfer50 wrote: »

And a large amount of extra M28 traffic will help alleviate the Westbound N40 mess??????
Interesting.

Oops, post 666👹

Dunkettle interchange will be done by then

the
I dont think that will prevent accidents at 8 o clock at night

Sam Russell

Mod: If the level of debate on this tread continues at this level, I will be deleting posts and handing out cards.

No name calling.

No congratulating name calling.

No traffiic reports of accidents, delays, or other AA Roadwatch comments.

Discuss the road, and its merits.

Kevwoody

Sam Russell wrote: »

Mod: If the level of debate on this tread continues at this level, I will be deleting posts and handing out cards.

No name calling.

No congratulating name calling.

No traffiic reports of accidents, delays, or other AA Roadwatch comments.

Discuss the road, and its merits.

I've seen you tell people on various threads that they can't post reports of accidents and the like on certain roads, and to post that kind of information in the Motors forum.
Can I ask that you revise this way of thinking, as I think the Roads forum is by far the best place as it allows discussion of changes which could be made to certain roads etc ?

boardsuser1

Golfer50 wrote: »

the
I dont think that will prevent accidents at 8 o clock at night

SeanW

I don't agree with some of the name-calling either, but I'd respect the anti-motorway crowd if:

1. Their objections had some foundation other than NIMBYism and some weird environmental-extremist positions.
2. They were capable of answering simple questions, like:
   1) What benefit is there in linking the Port and the Airport? They've suggested it would be a good idea. Why?
   2) What is fundamentally wrong with the Trumpet Interchange layout of the N28/N40. How is the Trumpet Interchange so badly flawed that this as an example of it cannot be fixed to deal with any problems?
   3) Where would an alternative M28 terminate on the South Ring? Remember that EU is demanding continuous blue signs all the way from the M8 to the Port. No breaks in motorway restrictions. That means an alternative M28 must either connect with the South Ring on a new Rathmorrissey type roundabout, or you must propose to take one of the existing roundabouts (Bandon, Sarsfield or Kinsale) and blue-sign them. Is this what the objectors are proposing? How is any solution better than fixing the current N28/N40 interchange and blue-signing that?
   4) What benefit is there in sending huge volumes of traffic 10 miles out of their way? It's 10 miles longer to get the Southern N28 from the M8 going via the Bandon Road Roundabout. How does it benefit anyone to have all that extra traffic using the entirety of the South Ring Road?
   5) If the alternative plan does not involve the Bandon or Sarsfield Rounadbouts (and re-regulating either roundabout as motorway to ban cyclists etc, because that would be required) and instead use the Kinsale Road Roundabout, how would the objector account for the fact that the KRR is clearly not up to the task and a person literally only needs to pass the whole mess once in a car on the South Ring to see this plainly?
   6) What plans do the objectors have to deal with the Douglas flyover, a low-spec 2+2 viaduct, which would be brought into play with any M28 terminus West of the planned location?

Baldilocks

Well said Sean W,

Can I add one point to your points;
1) If those against the current M28 are going to cite environmental reasons, then please explain how choosing a significantly longer route will result in reduced environmental impact, but in the construction of the road, and in its use?

Baldilocks

I note that none of the detractors to the current route have a logical, reasoned response to any of the questions raised.

Sam Russell

Kevwoody wrote: »

I've seen you tell people on various threads that they can't post reports of accidents and the like on certain roads, and to post that kind of information in the Motors forum.
Can I ask that you revise this way of thinking, as I think the Roads forum is by far the best place as it allows discussion of changes which could be made to certain roads etc ?

I'll explain my thinking.

1. If there is a Road Traffic Incident (RTI) on a particular road at a particular time, there is no way a poster can be cognisant of all the causes, or even any, of the accident. Therefor it is pointless having a discussion on an infrastructure thread as to how the road structure can be improved to eradicate such accidents.

2. If the RTI resulted in loss of life, it would add to the grief of those affected to come across discussions relating to that RTI, and that is something I am aware of and I hope posters take that into account before posting. Google is very good at finding such discussions - we are not hidden in our own bubble.

3. When the posts complain about traffic hold ups and the daft antics of some drivers, then that is descending to the AA Roadwatch realm and certainly has no place here.

Now I accept general comments, like for example the need for the M20 due to the inadequacy of the current N20 and the madness of prioritising other motorway projects (M17/M18) ahead of it, but those comments should not be at the detail of citing situations such as 'a tractor load of hay delayed over 20 cars yesterday morning and I was 20 minutes behind it'.

I accept that posters might disagree with this view but it is my view of how moderation of this forum needs to be carried out to maintain an orderly level of discussion without the threads chasing rabbits down holes.

I hope that explanation clears up the thinking behind it, and it is not intended to stifle discussion. Generally, I let some posts go, but if it looks like becoming a rabbit chase, then I will act.

If you have problems with my views expressed above, you may PM me.

Sam Russell

Mod:
This thread is now open.

This thread is only for discussion of the merits of the scheme and whether it should be built or not. Discuss the progress of the scheme in the other thread on the M28.


Please read post # 675

DoubleJoe7

Sad news that it got the go ahead, but hardly surprising. An Bord Pleanala has already shown its utter disregard for the people of the region once this summer, so we shouldn't be too surprised that they think nothing of ploughing four lanes of motorway through residential areas within meters of people's homes.

I can only hope the conditions attached are rigorous and do the utmost to mitigate the numerous negative impacts those of us living in its shadow are going to suffer.

I also hope my prediction that the Bloomfield interchange is utterly inadequate to handle what this motorway will bring will be wrong.

Sad day.

Kevwoody

DoubleJoe7 wrote:

Sad day.

Fantastic day for progress.

But as you say, there will hopefully be strict conditions to minimise disruption during construction.

However, when its complete there will be a massive difference in quality of life for residents along the route, it's a pity a few Nimby's couldn't see past their own agendas and realise that.

DoubleJoe7

Kevwoody wrote: »

Fantastic day for progress.

But as you say, there will hopefully be strict conditions to minimise disruption during construction.

However, when its complete there will be a massive difference in quality of life for residents along the route, it's a pity a few Nimby's couldn't see past their own agendas and realise that.

Explain how the quality of life of anyone is improved by building a motorway right next to their homes, because that's something that proponents of the road failed to do throughout the process.

Kevwoody

DoubleJoe7 wrote:

Explain how the quality of life of anyone is improved by building a motorway right next to their homes, because that's something that proponents of the road failed to do throughout the process.

The N28 in its current form is going nowhere, if a new motorway was built via Ballinhassig, traffic would still use the old road as its much shorter.

These arguments have been done to death here already and the support for the M28 upgrade is overwhelming.

The residents along the top of Carrs Hill are basically prisoners in their own homes at present, and the current road is an absolute death trap.

The M28 will have a much quieter road surface along with noise barriers, not that the objecting residents will admit it, but once open this road will make a massive difference.

As for your argument regarding Bloomfield, the only other option put forward was the Kinsale road roundabout, and anyone with half a brain can see why thats a non-runner.

marno21

Some absolute scutter in the submissions in that report.

Can someone please explain why there is so much objection to this being a "motorway", and people are happy with a "dual carriageway" instead when it has been repeatedly explained here that there is no difference between the two except for blue signs and no cyclists/pedestrians?

Can someone please explain how rerouting this via the N71 can be done with the same budget of €160m and how the Bandon Road roundabout will be more capable of taking the traffic on the M28, and why any truck driver would chose this lengthy diversion instead of taking the old N28 defeating the purpose of the new road?

Can someone explain why a container port needs to be linked by motorway to an airport with no dedicated cargo flights and no widebody passenger flights?

Can someone explain why a safety and capacity upgrade to an existing choked road, using the same roadbed for the busiest section, is a trigger for accidents involving trucks carrying chemicals to the port?

marno21

MOD: Thread reopened following approval of scheme.

This thread is only for discussion of the merits of the scheme and whether it should be built or not. Discuss the progress of the scheme in the other thread on the M28.

markodaly

Anyone know what the conditions are?

Limerick74

Orders taken from ABP Website with conditions

AugustusMinimus

Is it true it would cost €200k to launch a judicial review?

marno21

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Is it true it would cost €200k to launch a judicial review?

Yes

CHASE are already trying to raise money for a judicial review into the incinerator so the Steering Group may struggle if they have a whip around

AugustusMinimus

“However Gerard Harrington, Chairman of the M28 Steering Group, which represents up to 10,000 residents in Rochestown and Douglas opposed to the project, said he was disappointed but not at all surprised by the decision, given recent decisions by An Bord Pleanála.”

Irish Times.

Where are they pulling the 10,000 figure from. What a load of crap.

marno21

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

“However Gerard Harrington, Chairman of the M28 Steering Group, which represents up to 10,000 residents in Rochestown and Douglas opposed to the project, said he was disappointed but not at all surprised by the decision, given recent decisions by An Bord Pleanála.”

Irish Times.

Where are they pulling the 10,000 figure from. What a load of crap.

You know the media at this stage in relation to this project which apparently is a nuisance to destroy the lives of people in Rochestown from which no one will benefit.

The anti-development group have 8 weeks to come up with the funds for a judicial review. Good luck to them.

Leonard Hofstadter

Don't be giving them ideas!!

marno21

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/council-mulls-next-steps-for-220m-cork-ringaskiddy-motorway-472604.html

Examiner with a misleading headline including 2 lines about what the Council plan to do next and the rest of the article rehashed stuff about noise pollution

Time to give it a rest

Flesh Gorden

Another article here:

https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Anger-as-new-Cork-motorway-gets-the-green-light-6d4f937a-48e2-411f-b326-f8635bca5dfe-ds

Some absolute beauts in terms of soundbites, lots of vagueness and outright guesswork.

Douglas-based Councillor Mary Rose Desmond (FF)

“There is a traffic issue for the Carrigaline side but this is not the answer. It’s not going to resolve the traffic and I challenge anyone to come back in 10 years and say it has.”

Carrigaline-based Seamus McGrath (FF)


“In my view, this scheme will not commence until after the Dunkettle Interchange project is finished which will take almost five years from now

Green Party South Central representative Lorna Bogue

“This route won’t solve the traffic problems of the area and will create several new ones. New bottlenecks will be created,” she added.

The last one is my favourite. Any quotes I've read recently originating from Green Party members regarding development in Cork, have read as objecting for the sake of objecting.

I'm not sure what they were expecting from the oral hearings. Mob rule and scaremongering does not entitle a group of any size to have their opinions block needed development.