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

Middle Man

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

Would they actually devalue as a result? Property value is something I would be clueless on

I'd say in most cases, actually no! In any case, with the electric car coming in the nearer future (2030 target for complete changeover from diesel/petrol), noise levels and pollution will be much less of a factor. That said, I'm no expert in property valuation but to me, we need to get over this property obsession!

boardsuser1

https://twitter.com/sendboyle/status/928752244194979841

L1011

Dan is pandering to potential voters rather than having any actual Green concern here. And as we saw with a (possibly self appointed) "rep" for the "Steering Group", they are concerned about house prices and nothing else.

Wrapping NIMBYism up with faux concern doesn't stop it being NIMBYism.

Opposing improved access to a port wouldn't go down well back in Burtonport! Exiled Islander as I am myself.

Middle Man

If this road is refused, then this country has a serious decision to make. Property ownership is our number one enemy - look at the housing and transport crisis that it is causing - we are a laughing stock with this 'The Field' mentality. It is time to dissolve all freehold title and change it to leasehold where all land is in state ownership - this way, you cut out the middle guy and get things done!

L1011

Middle Man wrote: »

If this road is refused, then this country has a serious decision to make. Property ownership is our number one enemy - look at the housing and transport crisis that it is causing - we are a laughing stock with this 'The Field' mentality. It is time to dissolve all freehold title and change it to leasehold where all land is in state ownership - this way, you cut out the middle guy and get things done!

Leaseholders/tenants are allowed object to things too - wouldn't change anything here. Its also clearly unconstitutional as well as impractical.

Middle Man

L1011 wrote: »

Leaseholders/tenants are allowed object to things too - wouldn't change anything here. Its also clearly unconstitutional as well as impractical.

Of course anyone can object but the main point is that if housing arrangements are more flexible in line with modern employment trends, then it would be easier to move houses to make way for infrastructure - if there is no private land ownership, then there's no illusionary value to any property (land in particular). If houses/apartments have to be knocked, then just build replacement units first! In Dublin for example, many low rise areas could be raised and replaced with higher density development with plenty of room made for proper infrastructure and adequate social facilities.

BTW, we do need a new constitution in any case.

AugustusMinimus

The refusing of this road could have consequences much worse than Apple being refused permission in Athenry.

There are a lot of pharma jobs in Ringaskiddy and the reality is that companies will move jobs at a whim even if they have significant capital outlays over the years.

Be interesting to see what the politicians would do if it resulted in layoffs. Would be a national scandal.

Golfer50

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

The refusing of this road could have consequences much worse than Apple being refused permission in Athenry.

There are a lot of pharma jobs in Ringaskiddy and the reality is that companies will move jobs at a whim even if they have significant capital outlays over the years.

Be interesting to see what the politicians would do if it resulted in layoffs. Would be a national scandal.

Examiner article above . .
"Meanwhile, a spokesman for life science companies Biomarin, DePuy, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Recordati, Carbon Group and Hovione, which employ over 5,000, confirmed they backed the residents’ group."

Baldilocks

Golfer50 wrote: »

Examiner article above . .
"Meanwhile, a spokesman for life science companies Biomarin, DePuy, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Recordati, Carbon Group and Hovione, which employ over 5,000, confirmed they backed the residents’ group."

that refers to the route through Ringaskiddy, not the project in general.
not the first time the NIMBY's have stretched the truth!!

As for a being opposed to the project on environmental concerns - cement/concrete production is a decidedly environmentally unfriendly activity, proposing that the motorway is re-routed to a a route that is at least twice the length of the current preferred route, and will be all new - another fine example of horse-feathers from the NIMBYS

AugustusMinimus

Baldilocks wrote: »

Golfer50 wrote: »

Examiner article above . .
"Meanwhile, a spokesman for life science companies Biomarin, DePuy, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Recordati, Carbon Group and Hovione, which employ over 5,000, confirmed they backed the residents’ group."

that refers to the route through Ringaskiddy, not the project in general.
not the first time the NIMBY's have stretched the truth!!

As for a being opposed to the project on environmental concerns - cement/concrete production is a decidedly environmentally unfriendly activity, proposing that the motorway is re-routed to a a route that is at least twice the length of the current preferred route, and will be all new - another fine example of horse-feathers from the NIMBYS

The group have complained about the destruction of the “historic” Mulcon Valley. Yet have no issue with the same amount of Valley being destroyed between Carrigaline and Ballinhassig as part of their alternative route. A route which no one will use.

PlainDanBoyle

This is what the Irish Times reported of my submission on Tuesday. It only represents half of my argument. In that I pointed out many of the inconsistencies of previous Bord Pleanala decisions in the area.

Former Green Party TD Dan Boyle said upgrading the N28 represented a further imbalance between investment in road infrastructure and public transport which had been weighted towards the former in Cork over the past 40 years.
Mr Boyle pointed out that despite visionary plans such as the Land Use Transportation Study (LUTS) in 1978 and the Cork Area Strategic Plan(CASP) in 2001, there had been little investment in public transport with the re-opening of the Midleton rail line being the only such investment.
This contrasted with the situation in Dublin where investment in public transport had led to the establishment of the DART and the LUAS, he said, adding that it reflected “a poverty of thinking” when it came to public transport in Cork. Upgrading the N28 to a motorway was evidence of the same approach.
Mr Boyle acknowledged that the upgrade to a motorway was being driven in part by the desire to service industry in the Lower Harbour area but such development should have been located on the eastern side of Cork Harbour where there was an existing rail link to Cobh.

snotboogie

PlainDanBoyle wrote: »

This is what the Irish Times reported of my submission on Tuesday. It only represents half of my argument. In that I pointed out many of the inconsistencies of previous Bord Pleanala decisions in the area.

Former Green Party TD Dan Boyle said upgrading the N28 represented a further imbalance between investment in road infrastructure and public transport which had been weighted towards the former in Cork over the past 40 years.
Mr Boyle pointed out that despite visionary plans such as the Land Use Transportation Study (LUTS) in 1978 and the Cork Area Strategic Plan(CASP) in 2001, there had been little investment in public transport with the re-opening of the Midleton rail line being the only such investment.
This contrasted with the situation in Dublin where investment in public transport had led to the establishment of the DART and the LUAS, he said, adding that it reflected “a poverty of thinking” when it came to public transport in Cork. Upgrading the N28 to a motorway was evidence of the same approach.
Mr Boyle acknowledged that the upgrade to a motorway was being driven in part by the desire to service industry in the Lower Harbour area but such development should have been located on the eastern side of Cork Harbour where there was an existing rail link to Cobh.

So you are giving out about a lack of investment in Cork infrastructure and then protest a major investment in Cork infrastructure because it's not perfect? How long would it take to move the site across the harbor and then redraw plans for a new motorway? We'd be another decade redrawing all of the plans and would hold up the development of the Cork Docklands and the entire city

AugustusMinimus

I’m not sure there is enough space to have a new harbour located beside the existing rail line.

The only viable place is the old IFI plant. However, I don’t think this is public ally owned. The road infrastructure there is poor as is and the whole seabed would need work to accommodate larger ships which don’t pass beyond Monkstown anymore. The seabed in a lot of places around there is only 3 foot deep at low tide.

PlainDanBoyle

Plenty of alternatives. Different road trajectory or the provision of different infrastructure. Marino Point should become the central transport hub for Cork Harbour. I'm a bit tired of arguments made that because you question assumptions you also oppose 'progress'.

boardsuser1

PlainDanBoyle wrote: »

Plenty of alternatives. Different road trajectory or the provision of different infrastructure. Marino Point should become the central transport hub for Cork Harbour. I'm a bit tired of arguments made that because you question assumptions you also oppose 'progress'.

If a rail infrastructure was to be considered for Ringaskiddy, would it consist of effectively reopening some of all of the Blackrock/Passage railway line with extensions/diversions of the original?

This is a particular area i wouldn't be too upto date on.

AugustusMinimus

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

PlainDanBoyle wrote: »

Plenty of alternatives. Different road trajectory or the provision of different infrastructure. Marino Point should become the central transport hub for Cork Harbour. I'm a bit tired of arguments made that because you question assumptions you also oppose 'progress'.

If a rail infrastructure was to be considered for Ringaskiddy, would it consist of effectively reopening some of all of the Blackrock/Passage railway line with extensions/diversions of the original?

This is a particular area i wouldn't be too upto date on.

Closing the public walkway from Pairc Ui Chaoimh to Rochestown would not be a popular move. Don’t think it’s feasible.

A rail line to Ringaskiddy would require

1. Tunnel from train station under Cork city to south of city.
2. Substantial viaducting / earth work due to hilly gradients south of Cork City.
3. More land take which resident should are against.

If a tunnel isn’t done, a new rail bridge will be required across the lee and likely a substantial amount of houses will need demolition.


Alternatively a bridge across Cork harbour from Cobh. Completely cost prohibitive and wouldn’t really help Carrigaline.

PlainDanBoyle

Not necessarily. A rail bridge through Haulbowline might be an alternative.

AugustusMinimus

PlainDanBoyle wrote: »

Not necessarily. A rail bridge through Haulbowline might be an alternative.

I doubt it could be done for less than 300m, given it would need to still allow ship movement. This rail line wouldn’t help commuters on the South side of Cork city either. Carrigaline commuters would face a long journey which would be much shorter by car.

PlainDanBoyle

It would be a start. Multiples of that sum have been spent on road infrastructure development in the interim.

Baldilocks

Marino point is not deep enough to accommodate large container ships, as it stands a much smaller ship is currently coming into Cork city (Tivoli), but this is inefficient, with resultant economic and environmental costs. Nor is there sufficient space for turning. It does have rail, but rail is not efficient in Ireland. Rail will never be really be viable in the vast majority of Ireland (our population density is too low ~70people/km squared, The UK is ~135/km2, and they still have to subsidise it). There are definitely opportunities for greener transport, but rail is not viable at present. More intelligent use of bus lanes and cycle lanes, park and ride facilities, and possibly water taxis for Little Island/City centre/Ringaskiddy would be far easier to implement and more efficient to operate.

Have to laugh at 'Green' politician proposing rail as a solution in areas where the population density is low. Clearly unaware of just how much energy it takes to get the rolling stick moving!!! Reminds me of Fianna Fails plans to put a Luas to Carrigaline in 2007. A motorway with a dedicated bus lane would be half the cost, and be much more efficient to run.

Secondly, HGV's are not even half of the traffic using the N28 as it stands, most are people going to work in Ringaskiddy, or people travelling from the lower harbour area into the city centre/suburbs for work. The road needs upgrading. There is a fatal accident at the top of Carrs' hill every year, not to mind the many thousands of hours lost just being stuck in traffic, belching out fumes.

EMBARASSED FOR YOU if you think otherwise.

PlainDanBoyle

Ah God. The curse of the emphatic. It was the Greens who proposed the Cork LUAS from Ballincollig to Mahon. Major ports like Rotterdam transfer freight from larger to smaller ships to a preferred distribution points. The same is true of trucks. The purpose an upper harbour rail link would be to transfer freight to a hub like Marino Point. You're easily embarrassed.

boardsuser1

In my own experience of travelling the route quite regularly the percentage of HGV's is at a guess in the region of 20-25% at present.

Is the main issue of people in the general area the closure of the ramp going into Mount Oval and the ramp exiting Maryborough Hill?

Buses themselves tend to go up Maryborough hill and come out at the exit just before Maxol near the Shannonpark roundabout.

The biggest incident i can recall on the route involving a HGV was roughly around 2006 when an articulated truck shed its load consisting of sulfuric acid.

In relation to emissions, alot of the trucks are now Euro 6 spec and have adblue also to convert harmful emissions into water basically.

The majority of modern HGV's are actually less harmful to the environment than alot of other vehicles.

Was there a test of noise pollution done?

boardsuser1

PlainDanBoyle wrote: »

Ah God. The curse of the emphatic. It was the Greens who proposed the Cork LUAS from Ballincollig to Mahon. Major ports like Rotterdam transfer freight from larger to smaller ships to a preferred distribution points. The same is true of trucks. The purpose an upper harbour rail link would be to transfer freight to a hub like Marino Point. You're easily embarrassed.

I recall an article in the evening echo from many years ago on this, it made the front page, the photo shopped article showed a LUAS on St Patrick's Quay.

Would you be proposing a LUAS style system for the Ringaskiddy area to the city?

Or standard rail such as that from Cork to Cobh or similar?

Aontachtoir

PlainDanBoyle wrote: »

It would be a start. Multiples of that sum have been spent on road infrastructure development in the interim.

How would a freight railway line to the new Port of Cork satisfy EU requirements that the N28 (or a new road connecting Ringaskiddy with the national motorway network) should be a high-quality highway?

PlainDanBoyle

Light Rail from Ballincollig to Mahon we saw as being feasible. Extension to Carrigaline would need examination of different routes. One alternative would be a guided bus system that might co-incide with the existing walkways.
On the EuroRoute specification motorway standard isn't required. Neither Rosslare nor Foynes are linked by motorways.

Kevwoody

PlainDanBoyle wrote:

Light Rail from Ballincollig to Mahon we saw as being feasible. Extension to Carrigaline would need examination of different routes. One alternative would be a guided bus system that might co-incide with the existing walkways. On the EuroRoute specification motorway standard isn't required. Neither Rosslare nor Foynes are linked by motorways.

How exactly would any of this bring the existing N28 up to standard? Cars will still use the road. Trucks will still use the road. People will still die on this road.
All these "alternatives" being put forward are complete nonsense, the road should be built as planed with a heavy emphasis on noise barriers and mature planting.
The only change I would make would be perhaps drop the 2+2 section which will loop around the back of Ringaskiddy.

PlainDanBoyle

Kevwoody wrote: »

How exactly would any of this bring the existing N28 up to standard? Cars will still use the road. Trucks will still use the road. People will still die on this road.
All these "alternatives" being put forward are complete nonsense, the road should be built as planed with a heavy emphasis on noise barriers and mature planting.
The only change I would make would be perhaps drop the 2+2 section which will loop around the back of Ringaskiddy.

No one is arguing that the N28 shouldn't be enhanced. What is being argued is its trajectory, its specifications and whether it should done in isolation to a more integrated approach to transport.

Kevwoody

PlainDanBoyle wrote: »

No one is arguing that the N28 shouldn't be enhanced. What is being argued is its trajectory, its specifications and whether it should done in isolation to a more integrated approach to transport.

The existing N28 needs to be motorway, anything less is kicking the can further down the road.
Routing via Ballinhassig or the airport is just the steering group being Nimbys, pure and simple.

Middle Man

PlainDanBoyle wrote: »

No one is arguing that the N28 shouldn't be enhanced. What is being argued is its trajectory, its specifications and whether it should done in isolation to a more integrated approach to transport.

It all comes down to impact on property at the end of the day - that's the way I see it.

PlainDanBoyle

Kevwoody wrote: »

The existing N28 needs to be motorway, anything less is kicking the can further down the road.
Routing via Ballinhassig or the airport is just the steering group being Nimbys, pure and simple.

It doesn't. It isn't necessary for Rosslare or Foynes. It isn't necessary for Ringaskiddy either. Asserting something doesn't make it so. Calling those who don't agree with you names doesn't improve your argument.

Middle Man

PlainDanBoyle wrote: »

It doesn't. It isn't necessary for Rosslare or Foynes. It isn't necessary for Ringaskiddy either. Asserting something doesn't make it so. Calling those who don't agree with you names doesn't improve your argument.

Yes it does! The nature of the road and the traffic volumes thereon well justifies a motorway scheme. Even with public transport investment, the interim situation needs to be dealt with - in the long term, consider urban growth etc.

Golfer50

PlainDanBoyle wrote: »

It doesn't. It isn't necessary for Rosslare or Foynes. It isn't necessary for Ringaskiddy either. Asserting something doesn't make it so. Calling those who don't agree with you names doesn't improve your argument.

Cork Port is a Core port for TenT purposes (serving all those trucks from North Sea to the Med ) and therefore a motorway is required. Rosslare isn't.
Note that Cork was designated, not Ringaskiddy . . .

Kevwoody

PlainDanBoyle wrote:

It doesn't. It isn't necessary for Rosslare or Foynes. It isn't necessary for Ringaskiddy either. Asserting something doesn't make it so. Calling those who don't agree with you names doesn't improve your argument.

PlainDanBoyle wrote:

It doesn't. It isn't necessary for Rosslare or Foynes. It isn't necessary for Ringaskiddy either. Asserting something doesn't make it so. Calling those who don't agree with you names doesn't improve your argument.

I'm not calling anyone names. It's a commen term for people who don't want any development in their vicinity, but are happy to propose outrageous alternatives and base their claims on outright lies.
And Foynes has a new motorway in planning, so that argument doesn't make sense.

Middle Man

Golfer50 wrote: »

Cork Port is a Core port for TenT purposes (serving all those trucks from North Sea to the Med ) and therefore a motorway is required. Rosslare isn't.
Note that Cork was designated, not Ringaskiddy . . .

Well, Dublin Airport is Collinstown, not Dublin - Dublin Airport is Baldonnel! :rolleyes:

Well, by the quoted logic...

Aontachtoir

PlainDanBoyle wrote: »

Kevwoody wrote: »

The existing N28 needs to be motorway, anything less is kicking the can further down the road.
Routing via Ballinhassig or the airport is just the steering group being Nimbys, pure and simple.

It doesn't. It isn't necessary for Rosslare or Foynes. It isn't necessary for Ringaskiddy either. Asserting something doesn't make it so. Calling those who don't agree with you names doesn't improve your argument.

Rosslare is not a Core TEN-T port. Foynes is, and it is getting a motorway link built. The amount of traffic on the N28 easily justifies an upgrade to high-quality dual carriageway, for safety reasons alone.

The M28 is a justified, proportionate, and appropriate response to planning needs for future growth in our area, Cork as a whole, and Ireland overall.

kub

PlainDanBoyle wrote:

Light Rail from Ballincollig to Mahon we saw as being feasible. Extension to Carrigaline would need examination of different routes. One alternative would be a guided bus system that might co-incide with the existing walkways. On the EuroRoute specification motorway standard isn't required. Neither Rosslare nor Foynes are linked by motorways.

Is there a motorway being proposed for Foynes as per some EU Ports regulation?

L1011

There is a TEN-T compliant road, doesn't have to be motorway but the standards are difficult to meet without it, under planning for Foynes. There is a DC planned for Rosslare, but Rosslare is a ro-ro only port that people keep thinking is more important than it actually is.

AugustusMinimus

What’s being ignored here is that the AADT figures for the N28 at present easily qualify for motorway treatment.

Dan, what is your preference for an alternative route. Both the Kinsale and Bandon Road roundabouts couldn’t cope with additional traffic, unlike Bloomfield which can. The likelihood is that people would still use the old road anyways due to it being much shorter.

Dan, another reason I want to see this scheme go ahead is due to the effect it will have on local Douglas traffic. The altered junctions will dramatically improve traffic flow in the region, reducing cars stuck in traffic putting out dirty emissions. We will see dramatic improvements to congestion on the Rochestown Road.

Another factor which is ignored is that the old N28 can be returned to the people. It will be safe for cycling and possibly for walking again. It is a terrible road and those with houses facing into it must be living a nightmare with all sorts of access problem due to traffic and due to all right turns being banned.

AugustusMinimus

By the way, much appreciate you sharing your views on this public forum. It’s good to interact on any level with a public representative.

marno21

Thanks for taking part in the debate here Dan. It's refreshing to see someone involved in politics take the time to engage with people, regardless of whether they share their beliefs or not.

I'm not going debating, but there are a few facts I'd like to clear up:

1. TEN-T mandates that the Port of Dublin, Port of Shannon Foynes and Port of Cork be motorway connected. The Port of Cork is moving to Ringaskiddy, hence the requirement to connect it at its new location to the motorway network. As L1011 says, to comply with the restrictions on what constitutes a TEN-T Core road, we have to build a motorway. Traffic on the N28 also mandates a motorway be built in accordance with TII's road development guidelines. The next standard of road down, a Type 2 Dual Carriageway, has a maximum capacity of 20k AADT. The N28 exceeds this at present, let alone down the road. Hence, we need an M28 as opposed to an upgraded N28, by the letter of the standards TII use for development of new roads.

2. Rail freight is not economically viable in Ireland at present, and the cost benefit of a rail link to Ringaskiddy for freight would not pass any appraisals. We currently have very little freight transported by rail, only contractually bound (Tara Mines) or where the road network is not sutiable (Ballina-Dublin/Ballina-Waterford). The terrain of Cork-Ringaskiddy is also not conducive to railway building, and finding a route for the railway to connect to the existing rail network would also be a challenge. The fact that the existing Cork port is located on a rail line yet has no active rail freight operations backs up my above point.

3. There is no place east of Ballincollig to effectively tie in a motorway to the N40 bar at Bloomfield. Hence tunnelling and massive CPOs are required. Which affects a lot more residents than the 2/3 houses being CPO'd on the M28 plan and would cost an absolute fortune for less benefit.

4. Connecting the N40 and Ringaskiddy port is what TEN-T demands. Not connecting it to the airport (with no cargo flights), or the N71. The TEN-T documentation specifically demands connecting the M8 (via the N40) and Ringaskiddy port. Hence why the blue signs are going on the route.

Not a fact but food for thought............

5. Maybe Gerard Harrington hasn't thought of this, if you build a motorway between Carrs Hill and Ballinhassig, you may actually increase traffic on the N28 through Mulcon Valley as Kinsale/Airport Business Park/N71 traffic tries to avoid the Kinsale Road Roundabout/Bandon Road Roundabout/Douglas Flyover. This may increase pollution/noise/fumes on the N28 through the Mulcon Valley. The Bloomfield Interchange is the most capable interchange in Cork at present so may actually become busier were the route via the airport built.

Ludo

marno21 wrote: »

I'm not going debating, but there are a few facts I'd like to clear up:
[SNIP]
2. Rail freight has had its day in Ireland, [SNIP] backs up my above point.

3. There is no place east of Ballincollig to effectively tie in a motorway to the N40 bar at Bloomfield. [SNIP]

They are not facts...they are opinions.

marno21 wrote: »

4. Connecting the N40 and Ringaskiddy port is what TEN-T demands. Not connecting it to the airport (with no cargo flights), or the N71. The TEN-T documentation specifically demands connecting the M8 (via the N40) and Ringaskiddy port. Hence why the blue signs are going on the route.

The route can go anywhere to fulfill this silly requirement.

marno21

My opinion, not a mod post.

Ludo wrote: »

They are not facts...they are opinions.

I'm looking at a satellite view of Cork and I can see the N40 lined with houses either side from Curraheen to the JLT. Perhaps you can show the the green fields needed for a motorway/motorway junction when you get the chance.

Rail freight has been in terminal decline in Ireland and has shown no signs of reversal. I'm not making this up. Ireland is a small island with a very dispersed population and the development of the motorway network has made rail freight less viable.

The route can go anywhere to fulfill this silly requirement.

So they can build it to Ballinhassig and its fine then.. Not in my back yard.

Discussion on local Cork forum here for anyone interested..

http://www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240285&page=7

SeanW

From the time I spent in Cork, it seems to me that the existing N28 junction - a trumpet junction - is a much better terminus for an upgraded N28 than somewhere like the Kinsale Road Roundabout, which though I never used it, the heavy merge of traffic from it to the SRR especially going towards the tunnel, meant you certainly felt it even if you weren't using it.

Just one question to those objecting, well two. Why would you make a connection between Ringaskiddy and the N40 longer than it needs to be? As to the ideas of specifically connecting Ringaskiddy and Cork Airport, are there any journeys of any kind that would be assisted by this, i.e. a passenger who starts a journey by air to Cork Airport and transfers to a ferry in Ringaskiddy? Or vice versa? Or freight ... is there any freight that moves between Ringaskiddy and Cork Airport presently?

Middle Man

SeanW wrote: »

From the time I spent in Cork, it seems to me that the existing N28 junction - a trumpet junction - is a much better terminus for an upgraded N28 than somewhere like the Kinsale Road Roundabout, which though I never used it, the heavy merge of traffic from it to the SRR especially going towards the tunnel, meant you certainly felt it even if you weren't using it.

Just one question to those objecting, well two. Why would you make a connection between Ringaskiddy and the N40 longer than it needs to be? As to the ideas of specifically connecting Ringaskiddy and Cork Airport, are there any journeys of any kind that would be assisted by this, i.e. a passenger who starts a journey by air to Cork Airport and transfers to a ferry in Ringaskiddy? Or vice versa? Or freight ... is there any freight that moves between Ringaskiddy and Cork Airport presently?

...and in addition, why dig up more green land when there is a clear option to upgrade/closely realign the existing route?

markodaly

PlainDanBoyle wrote: »

It would be a start. Multiples of that sum have been spent on road infrastructure development in the interim.

Exactly. Rail Freight is almost non existent today in Ireland. Irish rail closed its container rail freight business in 2005 as it was bleeding them dry. The world has also moved on with its distribution model where containerisation and multi-model transport are the modern way to move stuff around.

We also have to talk about Irish Rail. It is no good to Intel or Pfizer, who rely on precise ETA's when Unions decide to down tools for a few days here and there like we had this week and last.

Yet, you want us to invest hundreds of millions into a failed model of transport for this Island? There is a reason why a fraction of goods in this country are moved by rail. We are too small a country, we are too lightly distributed around the country, unions bleeding IE dry and lack of government intervention or long term strategy.

Besides, with the imminent electrification of automobile transport within the next decade, I am not sure how clean and eco friendly old dirty diesel locomotives are in the long run. Its a technology of the last century.

I just dont buy the talk about looking for alternatives. Its just kite flying in an attempt to push the can down the road in an effort to stall, delay and hopefully cancel development, something that is endemic on this island. Look at the children's hospital fiasco, plan after plan, consultation after consultation and yet not a sod turned.

Generally politicians like yourself know how to play the game. You are too smart, so you think, as to not outright be against development, change or progress but you do not want this road to go ahead, well publicly anyway as you want to win votes. Privately you may have a very different opinion on the matter, who knows.

So instead you fly kites about building railway lines over to Haulbowline or building a road that will be twice as long and at least three times as expensive to Airport and the Bandon Rd. roundabout, as if these are actually serious proposals.

So, how about building this road and using what is left over to improve public transport in Cork, rather than some 300/400 million euro fantasy project?
We spent a few billion on the national road network and motorway network, perhaps we should leverage that, no?

markodaly

PlainDanBoyle wrote: »

On the EuroRoute specification motorway standard isn't required. Neither Rosslare nor Foynes are linked by motorways.

Kind of a play with words here.

TEN-T policy requires
that the route to the Port shall be a high quality route and according to European policy1
, the TEN-T
core network shall consist of an express road or motorway that must:-
 Be designed for motor traffic, accessible primarily from interchanges or controlled junctions;
and
 Prohibit stopping and parking on the running carriageway.
The existing N28 does not achieve these specified standards and is in need of significant upgrade to
satisfy the TEN-T requirements.

So either a motorway, or a HQDC which means that the road will have to be upgraded according to EU Policy anyway.

You say that we should improve this road but do you mean up to HQDC standards, or is this just subtle kicking the can down the road again to try and appease the steering group.

boardsuser1

Micheal Martin says the motorway will be 'Going through people's bedrooms'

139 submissions & 48 objections received by ABP.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ringaskiddy-motorway-will-go-into-residents-bedrooms-462659.html

Aontachtoir

I'm disappointed by Martin. This is a shameless attempt to garner protest votes by opposing vital infrastructure in his own constituency (which I vote in) and whipping up fear and resentment. I thought Fianna Fáil were moving on from their populist ways. Well, he's lost my vote.

Ludo

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I'm disappointed by Martin. This is a shameless attempt to garner protest votes by opposing vital infrastructure in his own constituency (which I vote in) and whipping up fear and resentment. I thought Fianna Fáil were moving on from their populist ways. Well, he's lost my vote.

Not sure why you make out it is a populist move
...he will lose more than he will gain by opposing it surely. Can't stand FF or Martin but this seems an odd stance from him.

marno21

Article:

Biomarin in favour of M28 but would like different route in Ringaskiddy

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/pharma-firms-back-motorway-upgrade-plan-for-ringaskiddy-route-1.3288709