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]

1353638404144

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭Golfer50


    I am now!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,015 ✭✭✭Kevwoody


    Golfer50 wrote:
    I am now!!


    Troll much?

    Typical steering group attitude.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    Golfer, i assure you that i will drive down the M28 in my truck before i retire from trucking, and i don't intend to be in the industry in 10 years.

    Kev, i wouldn't say Golfer is a troll per se,but does share the same values as the steering group on the face of it of it all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    Jesus christ this thread is a train wreck. I support the M28 going ahead but every time I read this thread I end up supporting the steering group a small little bit. The attitudes on here really do make a very very small part of me want to see permission denied just to see the reaction on here. Sad I know but that is what happens when people are not willing to be open to both sides of a discussion. There are actually valid points on both sides. Yes, the road should go ahead but simply dismissing peoples valid issues with generic Rochestown Road, NIMBY, troll put-downs, etc really doesn't help a discussion or your argument.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,558 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Ludo wrote: »
    Jesus christ this thread is a train wreck. I support the M28 going ahead but every time I read this thread I end up supporting the steering group a small little bit. The attitudes on here really do make a very very small part of me want to see permission denied just to see the reaction on here. Sad I know but that is what happens when people are not willing to be open to both sides of a discussion. There are actually valid points on both sides. Yes, the road should go ahead but simply dismissing peoples valid issues with generic Rochestown Road, NIMBY, troll put-downs, etc really doesn't help a discussion or your argument.

    Have you actually seen what is being posted by the Steering Group. Do you think scaremongering and ludicrous claims are an ok tactic?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭cjpm


    Ludo wrote: »
    Jesus christ this thread.....

    The steering group are opposed to an existing route being brought up to 21st century standards based predominantly on environmental and safety concerns.

    They are suggesting an alternative route which is longer (someone else can clarify how much) and involves trucks going from almost sea level to an altitude of approx 400ft and back down again.

    Very safe and environmentally friendly isn't it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    They're were genuine concerns apart from the ridiculous ones, just because there's a lot of ridiculous stuff it doesn't mean everything is ridiculous.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    Lads the way the steering group are proposing the motorway be routed we won't need to go to the Ring Of Kerry anymore because we will have the Ring Of Cork.

    When one logically thinks about it, you come through the JLT, head out to the KRR, up the N27 Airport road onto Ballygarvan and back down over the ShannonPark Roundabout by means of a flyover and onto Ringaskiddy, that will lead to traffic mayhem, the KRR can't cope with what it has even with the flyover, imagine throwing all the cargo for the port of Cork into the mix?

    Seriously now, if this judge has any common sense he will see through it all, the stunt for the quarry is something else altogether that wasn't part of the original plan, i've driven past it but was never in it, full of sh1t and rats isn't it? I know nothing of the alleged protected wildlife and plants in there but if rats are a protected wildlife then we're all fcuked, rentokil might as well pack up and go home.

    In the most bizarre of circumstances that the steering group pull this off and their proposal via the N27 happens, watch me drive my artic along the N28 as normal every day, chemicals or not.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Seriously now, if this judge has any common sense he will see through it all, the stunt for the quarry is something else altogether that wasn't part of the original plan
    It's not about the judge seeing something as a stunt at all, the review is about making sure ABP followed the correct procedure.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    TheChizler wrote: »
    They're were genuine concerns apart from the ridiculous ones, just because there's a lot of ridiculous stuff it doesn't mean everything is ridiculous.

    I believe the point to make then is that the steering group should be sticking to the genuine concerns instead of focusing on the ridiculous/scare-mongering ones. If the concerns have genuine merit then they shouldn't have too much to fear as the judgement on planning should address the genuine concerns, especially if they have been vocally highlighted, instead of merely trying to rile up the court of public opinion in pure objection to the entire proposal.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Sure, but we're not discussing things with the steering group, we're discussing them in this forum.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    cjpm wrote: »
    The steering group are opposed to an existing route being brought up to 21st century standards based predominantly on environmental and safety concerns.

    They are suggesting an alternative route which is longer (someone else can clarify how much) and involves trucks going from almost sea level to an altitude of approx 400ft and back down again.

    Very safe and environmentally friendly isn't it?

    Eh...why are you trying to convince me? I agree the road should go ahead.

    Of course both routes involve going from sea level to a height and back down again. Yes, the current route is less of a climb but it is still approx 300 ft so that 400 number is kinda presenting one side without context.

    Does anyone know where I can see detailed plans online for this road as the website appears to be gone? I heard something very strange from a neighbour the other day about it which I wasn't able to set him straight on. He was very certain that the main road with trucks an all will be passing within a few metres of houses in Mount Oval which I cannot believe. I assumed he was mixing up the realigned slip road (which will be closer to houses but only carrying local traffic) with the actual motorway but he was having none of it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,996 ✭✭✭two wheels good


    L1011 wrote: »
    Most popular brand in Ireland until recently and probably sold more than 50% diesel

    The Greens have a lot to answer for effectively pushing the population to buy diesel en-masse when other countries knew the health risks. Can't see how anyone with even minor respiratory issues can countenance voting for them again

    All across Euroope diesel was promoted - even where no Green Party MPs were in office (e.g. UK).
    The problem was that scientific advisors and politicians were duped by the lies and lobbying and fraud of many motor manufacturors.
    And still governments and EU politicians are failing to redress the problems.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Sure, but we're not discussing things with the steering group, we're discussing them in this forum.

    Agreed entirely but the issue is its basically impossible to discuss 'Should it be built' without discussing the steering group, regardless of their presence on this forum. Just as I couldn't see a discussion regarding the A5 in NI going on without mention of the Alternative A5 Alliance.

    The opposition to the road is a major point of discussion, while a legitimate issue with route/environmental issue tends to be quickly discussed and a solution presented/'Its in the hands of ABP' being raised.

    I think given the general thread of 'approval in principle' for almost all proposed schemes by us infra nuts its always going to be a bone of contention when a group opposes it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭cjpm


    Ludo wrote: »
    Eh...why are you trying to convince me? I agree the road should go ahead.


    I wasn't. Just pointing out the Steering Groups Number 1 tactic.


    Ludo wrote: »

    Of course both routes involve going from sea level to a height and back down again. Yes, the current route is less of a climb but it is still approx 300 ft so that 400 number is kinda presenting one side without context.


    I believe the current route is less than 300ft so the Airport route is at least 33% higher altitude wise. Also there is nothing even similar to the current Airport Hill gradient planned for the new route.



    IIRC the max permitted gradient on a Motorway is 3% (or 4% if a departure from standards is applied).


    For safety reasons.......



    For trucks in particular......



    On a route from a Port......


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,953 ✭✭✭cantalach


    cjpm wrote: »
    IIRC the max permitted gradient on a Motorway is 3% (or 4% if a departure from standards is applied).

    Well if that is correct, and even if the higher 4% gradient is applied, that would rule out the N27 as a route corridor for a motorway. The 2km from the Bull McCabe to the Airport Roundabout is 4.4%.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    What is the gradient on the N28 from Bloomfield towards Carrigaline and from Carrigaline towards Cork around the petrol garage?
    Not looking for a reason to object ....just curious as to the comparison ;-)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭cjpm


    cantalach wrote: »

    Well if that is correct, and even if the higher 4% gradient is applied, that would rule out the N27 as a route corridor for a motorway. The 2km from the Bull McCabe to the Airport Roundabout is 4.4%.

    Very interesting reading for those interested in road design....


    https://www.engineersireland.ie/getmedia/fcf36710-ebbf-480f-8301-340f6f2f7748/2-Angela-Grady.aspx

    It is a presentation given to explain the basics of road design in Ireland. It's slightly out of date as TII upgraded the standards since.

    Page 23 shows max gradients for different road types.

    I can't dig out the updated table however I expect it's the same as the one in the presentation.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭cjpm


    I don't know how to create a hyperlink when posting on the phone apologies.


  • Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭highwaymaniac


    cjpm wrote: »
    I don't know how to create a hyperlink when posting on the phone apologies.

    https://www.engineersireland.ie/getmedia/fcf36710-ebbf-480f-8301-340f6f2f7748/2-Angela-Grady.aspx

    If you are really that interested TA43 is a good document on the theory behind road design standards. http://www.tiipublications.ie/library/DN-GEO-03031-03.pdf


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,953 ✭✭✭cantalach


    Ludo wrote: »
    What is the gradient on the N28 from Bloomfield towards Carrigaline and from Carrigaline towards Cork around the petrol garage?
    Not looking for a reason to object ....just curious as to the comparison ;-)

    N28 north from Shannonpark gains 81m over 2.7km, which is 3% avg. From Bloomfield south it gains 101m over 3.3km, which is also 3%.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,928 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    How does this compare to the current steepest motorway in Ireland, the M2 just north of Belfast? Are we gonna beat it with the proposed M28?
    The Hill Section

    The "hill section" between junctions 2 and 4 is the second steepest section of motorway anywhere in the UK (the terminus of the M90 in Scotland is the steepest). Over a distance of the 4.6km from junction 2 to the summit point the motorway rises vertically by 135 metres, an average gradient of 1 in 34. UK motorway construction guidelines give a maximum gradient of 1 in 25, with 1 in 20 permissible over short stretches where terrain makes it unavoidable. The hill section appears to pass this - until you look at the gradient curve as shown here:

    Ripped blatantly from http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/roads/m2.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,953 ✭✭✭cantalach


    cantalach wrote: »
    N28 north from Shannonpark gains 81m over 2.7km, which is 3% avg. From Bloomfield south it gains 101m over 3.3km, which is also 3%.

    Oh and I quoted the Airport Hill after the Bull McCabe yesterday...the full climb from the KRR to the top gains 130m over 2.9km which is 4.5%.


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭Golfer50


    cantalach wrote: »
    N28 north from Shannonpark gains 81m over 2.7km, which is 3% avg. From Bloomfield south it gains 101m over 3.3km, which is also 3%.
    Traveling southward, at present, the initial steep 1km section from Rochestown overpass to the Maryborough overpass has I believe a gradient of 5.8%. Indeed the first 800m rises at 6.5%. These figures are of course way higher than they should be for a motorway. This was explored at the oral hearing and as I recall it was admitted by the applicants that the appropriate relaxations were not considered or noted. Indeed with these figures you would need some generous relaxation of design guidelines. I’m not sure if this vital gem found it’s way into the inspector’s final report.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,435 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Golfer50 wrote: »
    Traveling southward, at present, the initial steep 1km section from Rochestown overpass to the Maryborough overpass has I believe a gradient of 5.8%. Indeed the first 800m rises at 6.5%. These figures are of course way higher than they should be for a motorway. This was explored at the oral hearing and as I recall it was admitted by the applicants that the appropriate relaxations were not considered or noted. Indeed with these figures you would need some generous relaxation of design guidelines. I’m not sure if this vital gem found it’s way into the inspector’s final report.
    It's a point well made but it can be easily dealt with by the fact that there was no suitable alternative route presented.

    Cork will have similar challenges when new routes are being selected for the N27, N71 and North Ring West.


  • Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭Golfer50


    marno21 wrote: »
    it can be easily dealt with by the fact that there was no suitable alternative route presented..

    Fair enough and there’s no point going over the old arguments as the case has been heard . . . . .but . . .
    It is very much the design team’s duty to come up with an appropriate route and considerations of vertical and horizontal alignment are supposed to come very early in the design process. In this case I believe that a far from perfect route was chosen because in most people’s mind it was always going to be the route. Design goals, WHO recommendations etc etc totally ignored in the Rochestown section.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,088 ✭✭✭Reputable Rog


    marno21 wrote: »
    It's a point well made but it can be easily dealt with by the fact that there was no suitable alternative route presented.

    Cork will have similar challenges when new routes are being selected for the N27, N71 and North Ring West.

    NRR west will be very tricky, some sort of tunnel may be required.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,558 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    NRR west will be very tricky, some sort of tunnel may be required.

    There is to be a large viaduct. The original plans for NRR East had 2 tunnels.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,549 ✭✭✭kub


    I wonder should the planners now begin to review this Maryborough Ridge Junction and revert to having an active on/ off through that park?


    Just there is a development of 500 extra houses going to be built up there and soon.


    https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Councillors-raise-concerns-on-infrastructure-in-Douglas-area-50b75eb5-70f4-4f2e-8ea8-61fedf541540-ds


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,558 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    kub wrote: »
    I wonder should the planners now begin to review this Maryborough Ridge Junction and revert to having an active on/ off through that park?


    Just there is a development of 500 extra houses going to be built up there and soon.


    https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Councillors-raise-concerns-on-infrastructure-in-Douglas-area-50b75eb5-70f4-4f2e-8ea8-61fedf541540-ds

    Should never have been removed. And the killing thing is you know the residents will regret it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement