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

AugustusMinimus

The other option is to build a new road between the old N28 and Moneygurney when the motorway opens. Build it south of the upgraded interchange.

marno21

A link from Maryborough Ridge to M28 J3 Carrs Hill is always feasible to be planned after the M28 opens

Cork Trucker

Was driving along the N28 yesterday for work, as i do most days, at 12.10pm having reached the top of carrs hill where 2 lanes become 1 everything was fine, then the problems started, from there to the Douglas exit there was a teleporter doing a crawling speed, the stupidity of some drivers was crazy, not only those who were trying to overtake the teleporter in stupid places but those who were also behind me looking to overtake even with cars oncoming, i could see them in my mirror just sticking out a little, is it any wonder there are crashes with these idiots and if the motorway isn't built it will only get worse, it's the most direct route, so even if the NIMBY's got their own way i'd imagine a large number of vehicles will still use the existing road. I will anyway.

Aontachtoir

Closely related to the M28's planning woes - IBEC has issued a report calling for major reform of the costly, slow and cumbersome Irish planning system. Suggestions include a dedicated Planning Court, much stricter rules against appealing ABP decisions, and punishment for objectors who delay cases through spurious arguments or false assertions of fact.

The report specifically references the M28 as an example of critical infrastructure held up by a bad planning system. And, as we all sit and wait for the judicial review to take place on an 11-km stretch of road that went to ABP in May 2017, the report also states that "the apparent ease with which objectors can frustrate badly-needed projects" makes major reform of the judicial review system urgent and unavoidable.

Hopefully the government will listen.

Report is here: https://www.ibec.ie/IBEC/Press/PressPublicationsdoclib3.nsf/vPages/Newsroom~major-planning-report-launched-by-ibec-15-01-2019/$file/Ibec+-+Better+Planning+Report.pdf

SeanW

Not while that putz Ross is in charge.

Golfer50

That a business lobby group favours a business favourable planning process is hardly a surprise.
Every lobby group has its own agenda.

marno21

Golfer50 wrote: »

That a business lobby group favours a business favourable planning process is hardly a surprise.
Every lobby group has its own agenda.

It's not just business groups. There doesn't seem to be anyone against the M28 upgrade apart from the small factions around Rochestown.

Ludo

marno21 wrote: »

It's not just business groups. There doesn't seem to be anyone against the M28 upgrade apart from the small factions around Rochestown.

Well that's kinda obvious as that is the only populated area it goes through.

kub

Well that's kinda obvious as that is the only populated area it goes through.[/quote]

That it does and it always will whether that is an M or an N.

Aontachtoir

Golfer50 wrote: »

That a business lobby group favours a business favourable planning process is hardly a surprise.
Every lobby group has its own agenda.

True. In a democracy people are free to form lobby groups for different agendas as they see fit. However, not all lobby groups are of equal value to the country. Some lobby groups, like IBEC, support Irish businesses, Irish jobs, and Irish workers by promoting badly-needed infrastructure and cracking down on abuse of the planning system. Other lobby groups, like the Steering Group, do not.

Bring on the Steering Group's judicial review and inevitable subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court, wasting tens of thousands of taxpayer euro in legal fees and tens of millions in inflated construction costs. I wonder how many teachers or nurses could be hired with that difference.

Cork Trucker

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Bring on the Steering Group's judicial review and inevitable subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court, wasting tens of thousands of taxpayer euro in legal fees and tens of millions in inflated construction costs. I wonder how many teachers or nurses could be hired with that difference.

Have we got a date yet for the JR? Also while i'm aware of the costs of this in general, the steering group must lodge these funds in advance of the case must they? or at least the funds must be frozen in a bank account to show they can meet the costs for both sides if their application is thrown out, which i am optimistic on.

Then for the Supreme court? how will costs work there? pay in advance or something similar?

This will go to the ECJ is they can get it there i reckon.

The Bloomfield interchange is getting worse hence it is badly needed here.

Any car drivers looking in on this, please remember the interchange is a 60km/h zone, the idiocy of drivers i am facing here on a daily basis baggars belief.

AugustusMinimus

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Have we got a date yet for the JR? Also while i'm aware of the costs of this in general, the steering group must lodge these funds in advance of the case must they? or at least the funds must be frozen in a bank account to show they can meet the costs for both sides if their application is thrown out, which i am optimistic on.

Then for the Supreme court? how will costs work there? pay in advance or something similar?

This will go to the ECJ is they can get it there i reckon.

The Bloomfield interchange is getting worse hence it is badly needed here.

Any car drivers looking in on this, please remember the interchange is a 60km/h zone, the idiocy of drivers i am facing here on a daily basis baggars belief.

A lot of it is only 50kph I think.

Cork Trucker

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

A lot of it is only 50kph I think.

You're thinking of the single lane that goes from Bloomfield onto the SRR via the loop road for the tunnel? Indeed that bit is 50kph.

Ludo

AFAIK all of Bloomfield interchange is 50 kmph. How is the upgrade motorway going to improve this by the way? Honest question. Any plans I have seen don't really make much of a change to it. Still going to be lots of merging to get off at Rochestown coming from N40 west or to continue onto M28 south coming from N40 east.

marno21

Ludo wrote: »

AFAIK all of Bloomfield interchange is 50 kmph. How is the upgrade motorway going to improve this by the way? Honest question. Any plans I have seen don't really make much of a change to it. Still going to be lots of merging to get off at Rochestown coming from N40 west or to continue onto M28 south coming from N40 east.

Bloomfield doesn't need upgrading, it's at the required level for a road of this standard. There will be some jockeying at that stretch before the Rochestown exit but the low speed limit will take care of that at peak times

The merging issues on the other side will be much better with the M28 -> M40W dedicated lane

AugustusMinimus

Ludo wrote: »

AFAIK all of Bloomfield interchange is 50 kmph. How is the upgrade motorway going to improve this by the way? Honest question. Any plans I have seen don't really make much of a change to it. Still going to be lots of merging to get off at Rochestown coming from N40 west or to continue onto M28 south coming from N40 east.

Huge change as marno has said with 2 additional lanes for N28 to N40W.

kub

Ludo wrote: »

AFAIK all of Bloomfield interchange is 50 kmph. How is the upgrade motorway going to improve this by the way? Honest question. Any plans I have seen don't really make much of a change to it. Still going to be lots of merging to get off at Rochestown coming from N40 west or to continue onto M28 south coming from N40 east.

No it is not all 50 kph, as Cork Trucker said the only section that is, is the bridge section and loop going East towards the tunnel.
The rest of it is 60 kph.

Ludo

Definitely also 50 coming off the N40 eastbound and westbound towards Carrigaline. No further speed limit sign until the 100 kmph one beyond the Rochestown exit.

In fact, I just checked on street view and it appears there is a 60 sign when coming from Mahon direction but none when coming from N40heading south. Weird.
Doesn't really matter anyway..no one obeys them.

So 2 additional lanes. 4 in total so coming onto N40 westbound? God...there are crashes at that point most days as it is...2 more lanes will really help there :-)

TheChizler

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Have we got a date yet for the JR? Also while i'm aware of the costs of this in general, the steering group must lodge these funds in advance of the case must they? or at least the funds must be frozen in a bank account to show they can meet the costs for both sides if their application is thrown out, which i am optimistic on.

We went through it in this thread before but the only significant money you might have to pay up front is to your own representation, you can't financially deny people access to the courts. Costs happen after.

danny004

Speaking to someone who is independent but knowledgeable about the case and current thinking is the steering group have a high possibility of winning the JR on the basis of some European directives not being considered. It would then be passed back to the board to consider those directives who in all probability will just update their planning approval including those directives and then into 8 weeks where the steering group have to decide if they want to go again .

Cork Trucker

TheChizler wrote: »

We went through it in this thread before but the only significant money you might have to pay up front is to your own representation, you can't financially deny people access to the courts. Costs happen after.

Don't be surprised then if they refuse to pay the state's costs when they lose, it happens all the time in this country.

TheChizler

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Don't be surprised then if they refuse to pay the state's costs when they lose, it happens all the time in this country.

Actually I wonder how a loosely defined group could be ordered to pay costs, are some people specifically named as plaintiffs? That's assuming costs can be awarded in a judical review, I don't know that for sure.

Cork Trucker

danny004 wrote: »

Speaking to someone who is independent but knowledgeable about the case and current thinking is the steering group have a high possibility of winning the JR on the basis of some European directives not being considered. It would then be passed back to the board to consider those directives who in all probability will just update their planning approval including those directives and then into 8 weeks where the steering group have to decide if they want to go again .

Does that concern the quarry in Raffeen?

Surely the line has to be drawn somewhere in that it can't endlessly go on from the courts back to the board, the NIMBY's kick off again and the circle goes round still further.

Cork Trucker

TheChizler wrote: »

Actually I wonder how a loosely defined group could be ordered to pay costs, are some people specifically named as plaintiffs? That's assuming costs can be awarded in a judical review, I don't know that for sure.

I'm not big into the legal stuff but i'm sure someone had to step forward and sign off on proceedings in a solicitors office? It can't just be a case of take a judicial review and to hell with the costs? over 100k or something around it is the cost.

MrDerp

TheChizler wrote: »

Actually I wonder how a loosely defined group could be ordered to pay costs, are some people specifically named as plaintiffs? That's assuming costs can be awarded in a judical review, I don't know that for sure.

I’d imagine the fund raising has been to retain their own solicitors, and the not insignificant costs of having a SC represent you in the high court.

Cork Trucker

MrDerp wrote: »

I’d imagine the fund raising has been to retain their own solicitors, and the not insignificant costs of having a SC represent you in the high court.

Probably both a SC & JC needed, expensive day out.

TheChizler

MrDerp wrote: »

I’d imagine the fund raising has been to retain their own solicitors, and the not insignificant costs of having a SC represent you in the high court.

No doubt. I'm just wondering if they were ordered to pay costs, if that's even possible, who specifically would it be tied to. The steering group isn't a legal entity AFAIK.

MrDerp

TheChizler wrote: »

No doubt. I'm just wondering if they were ordered to pay costs, if that's even possible, who specifically would it be tied to. The steering group isn't a legal entity AFAIK.

Won’t have costs awarded against them. Just look at serial objector Peter Sweetman.

Kevwoody

Yea this is really great for the environment, and the steering group say the motorway will make it worse!

Golfer50

So, traffic delayed to and from Carrigaline this morning . . caused by the fallout from overnight snow and freezing conditions. And you want to have a pop at someone because of this?

Nice photo though.