M28 - Cork to Ringaskiddy [advance works ongoing; 2025 start; 2028 completion]

Ludo

marno21 wrote: »

I think a ABP will refuse the Mount Oval slip - it has no place on a motorway and the objectors are up in arms about it - you can't have your cake and eat it.

Probably, but very silly if so as it will only force a lot of traffic unnecessarily onto the Rochestown Road which will clog up the junction and cause tail-backs back onto the motorway which already happens. A right turn lane and traffic lights won't make that situation better. And make it more dangerous also as more traffic will have to merge in a short space of road to get off at the earlier exit. Only people with a total lack of local knowledge would think that slip road should be removed...so it probably will be.

Aontachtoir

Ludo wrote: »

marno21 wrote: »

I think a ABP will refuse the Mount Oval slip - it has no place on a motorway and the objectors are up in arms about it - you can't have your cake and eat it.

Probably, but very silly if so as it will only force a lot of traffic unnecessarily onto the Rochestown Road which will clog up the junction and cause tail-backs back onto the motorway which already happens. A right turn lane and traffic lights won't make that situation better. And make it more dangerous also as more traffic will have to merge in a short space of road to get off at the earlier exit. Only people with a total lack of local knowledge would think that slip road should be removed...so it probably will be.

Traffic leaving the M28 for Mount Oval will be turning left onto the Rochestown Road though. Potentially there could be a setup for a free-flowing or yield-only left turn so that traffic that would have previously used the Mount Oval slip will still be able to leave the motorway without getting backed up at a red light.

Ludo

Can't see how there would be room for that with the roundabout by the church and traffic coming through from Douglas. Maybe you are right though they could so a large rework of that whole junction instead of the slip to mount oval. It would involve demolishing a few houses though in the ghost estate by the roundabout at least.

kub

Well if Rochestown Road will be such a disaster for people heading to Mount Oval, then they could just go further up the M28 and take the next exit, then across Maryborough Ridge to Moneygourney and down to the traffic lights by Garyduff.

Ludo

But I thought that exit was nixed no? Must look at the plans age in as I had forgotten its been so long. If not fair enough. And it's not mount oval residents it would be bad for. It's everyone who uses the rochestown road exit if it adds to delays there. Disaster is a bit hyperbole by you there in fairness.

AugustusMinimus

One of the Steering Groups key problems is perceived landscaping issues with the Mount Oval slip.

They have generated some horrific images showing what it “will” look like. Won’t look near as bad as they are professing. Ironically this may help close that slip permanently.

spacetweek

Their photo montages are quite ridiculous, thrown together with Microsoft paint based on their personal opinions only.

marno21

The right job would be if they included both the new link road from the Carrs Hill interchange to the Maryborough Road and also the planned connection to Maryborough Ridge. Having two routes each side of the motorway would provide 2 distributor routes from the motorway and would facilitate higher overall capacity at the high capacity Carrs Hill interchange. The Mount Oval slip is not fit for purpose as a motorway exit.

On another note, the decision will be made on this on 13th of April. The project was submitted to ABP on May 16th last year. That's 11 months to make a decision. That badly needs sorting as it looks like there will be similar misinformed crusades against the N6 Galway bypass, the Slane bypass and the M20 amongst others.

kub

marno21 wrote: »

On another note, the decision will be made on this on 13th of April. The project was submitted to ABP on May 16th last year. That's 11 months to make a decision. That badly needs sorting as it looks like there will be similar misinformed crusades against the N6 Galway bypass, the Slane bypass and the M20 amongst others.

It is ridiculous alright how long it takes, I imagine these people are a law onto themselves.
I suppose that is the difference between people that work and people who are employed.

_Kaiser_

Down that way today and I see the council have been playing with the speed limits this week, with the limit now 100 from Shannonpark roundabout, but reduced to 80 from the end of the climbing lane to the top of the hill, as well as changes to the Ringaskiddy road after Shanbally Cross to Ringaskiddy itself (increased to 80 from 60 which is welcome change)

kub

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Down that way today and I see the council have been playing with the speed limits this week, with the limit now 100 from Shannonpark roundabout, but reduced to 80 from the end of the climbing lane to the top of the hill, as well as changes to the Ringaskiddy road after Shanbally Cross to Ringaskiddy itself (increased to 80 from 60 which is welcome change)

Will that still be the same on the 2nd of April?

marno21

kub wrote: »

Will that still be the same on the 2nd of April?

Yes, part of the national speed limit review. Most national primary roads that were never widened will be limited to 80km/h. The full results will be published soon

If it is a 1st April post, it'll be a true one fairly soon

kub

marno21 wrote: »

Yes, part of the national speed limit review. Most national primary roads that were never widened will be limited to 80km/h. The full results will be published soon

If it is a 1st April post, it'll be a true one fairly soon

Thank you Marno and my apologies Kaiser, I honestly thought this was an Aprils fools post. I had no idea of this national roll out until i saw a thread devoted to it just now.

marno21

kub wrote: »

Thank you Marno and my apologies Kaiser, I honestly thought this was an Aprils fools post. I had no idea of this national roll out until i saw a thread devoted to it just now.

In fairness, I don't see any reason to apologise.

In an ideal world you wouldn't think you'd have to speed restrict the road between the motorway network and Cork's biggest employment hub and seaport due to the road being too narrow to accommodate safe running.

Carawaystick

marno21 wrote: »

In fairness, I don't see any reason to apologise.

In an ideal world you wouldn't think you'd have to speed restrict the road between the motorway network and Cork's biggest employment hub and seaport due to the road being too narrow to accommodate safe running.

Is there not 50 limits on the Bloomfield Interchange?
80 in the tunnel?

AugustusMinimus

Carawaystick wrote: »

Is there not 50 limits on the Bloomfield Interchange?
80 in the tunnel?

50kph limits on a trumpet interchange is quite common though.

A 80kph limit of the main road between Cork City and it’s second biggest dormitory town says it all though.

marno21

Carawaystick wrote: »

Is there not 50 limits on the Bloomfield Interchange?
80 in the tunnel?

60km/h at Bloomfield due to weaving and geometric restrictions.

80km/h in all tunnels in Ireland for safety restrictions bar a few 100km/h tunnels in Kerry which weren't built to engineering standards

AugustusMinimus

marno21 wrote: »

60km/h at Bloomfield due to weaving and geometric restrictions.

80km/h in all tunnels in Ireland for safety restrictions bar a few 100km/h tunnels in Kerry which weren't built to engineering standards

Part of Bloomfield is 50kph and I believe that the Shannon Tunnel has a 100kph limit?

marno21

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Part of Bloomfield is 50kph and I believe that the Shannon Tunnel has a 100kph limit?

Didn't realise the 50km/h at Bloomfield was an actual limit, I thought it was an advisory.

Shannon Tunnel is 80km/h

AugustusMinimus

marno21 wrote: »

Didn't realise the 50km/h at Bloomfield was an actual limit, I thought it was an advisory.

Shannon Tunnel is 80km/h

N40 East to N28 South is deffo 50kph for the twisty but. Goes up to 60kph after that I think. Same for N28 North to N40 east.

Dunno why I had it in my head about the Shannon Tunnel. For whatever reason, you can change lanes in the Shannon Tunnel. Can’t in the Jack Lynch.

mikeym

80Kmph on Carrs Hill is a joke.

Now theres another reason to build the M28.

Any person travelling to work that uses the N28 is screaming for this to be built.

AugustusMinimus

mikeym wrote: »

80Kmph on Carrs Hill is a joke.

Now theres another reason to build the M28.

Any person travelling to work that uses the N28 is screaming for this to be built.

They’ll have speed vans all over these redesignated roads. IMO, a lot of these changes are not justified. Smacks of the RSA blaming everything on speed, as always.

marno21

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

N40 East to N28 South is deffo 50kph for the twisty but. Goes up to 60kph after that I think. Same for N28 North to N40 east.

Dunno why I had it in my head about the Shannon Tunnel. For whatever reason, you can change lanes in the Shannon Tunnel. Can’t in the Jack Lynch.

When you have the JLT as 80km/h and then use the Shannon Tunnel you do get the impression the Shannon Tunnel is faster because it's dead straight and allows overtaking as you say. There's also no roundabout 400m from the mouth of the tunnel. Very frequent spot for Garda cars though on the Clare side just before the Cahirdavin exit.

mikeym wrote: »

80Kmph on Carrs Hill is a joke.

Now theres another reason to build the M28.

Any person travelling to work that uses the N28 is screaming for this to be built.

I think Carrs Hill is a joke more than the new limit. What these new 80 zones really show is how deficient some of our key roads are. When national primary routes have to be restricted to 80km/h it really shows how bad it is.

9 more days til we hear.

Golfer50

marno21 wrote: »

9 more days til we hear.

. . . . and then some!

marno21

Golfer50 wrote: »

. . . . and then some!

Hardly delayed again ?

Golfer50

Yes. I believe the Inspector's report is delayed and hence the Board's decision making process . . by about two months.

marno21

Golfer50 wrote: »

Yes. I believe the Inspector's report is delayed and hence the Board's decision making process . . by about two months.

If true, for **** sake.

There'll be a further delay caused by the inevitable appeal if approved.

Thanks for the information .

Middle Man

marno21 wrote: »

If true, for **** sake.

There'll be a further delay caused by the inevitable appeal if approved.

Thanks for the information .

Hope there aren't any Russians, Japanese or Chinese around listening in on this M28 pantomime - they'd be on their backs laughing at us Irish! :mad:

Cookiemunster

Middle Man wrote: »

Hope there aren't any Russians, Japanese or Chinese around listening in on this M28 pantomime - they'd be on their backs laughing at us Irish! :mad:

Ireland may have issues with its planning processes, but I wouldn't really be using authoritarian states like Russia and China as shining examples of how to do things.

marno21

Post on the M28 Steering Group Facebook page that the decision on the M28 has been delayed by at least another two months.

These decisions should not be taking more than a year. This is beyond painful

Aontachtoir

marno21 wrote: »

Post on the M28 Steering Group Facebook page that the decision on the M28 has been delayed by at least another two months.

These decisions should not be taking more than a year. This is beyond painful

When you consider the planning application for this 10 kilometre stretch of road was lodged in May 2017, the original decision date was December 2017, and it now looks like we won't be getting a decision until July 2018, something needs to change. It's high time the Government took the same approach to infrastructure planning that they took to house building with the Strategic Housing Development system. The key relevant feature is the rapid turn-around, with ABP required to aim to get appropriate applications through the planning system to a decision in less than three months. Going forward, the Government needs to legislate to require ABP to consider infrastructure projects included in National Development Plans under similar time limits (although at least six months would probably be required). 

That said - in a case like this with the Steering Group on the prowl, I'd rather a late reply with every single i dotted and t crossed from ABP's point of view to a rushed decision which would leave the door open for a frivolous legal challenge that might succeed on a technicality.

Golfer50

We have a planning process for very good reasons. If your neighbour wanted to build a monstrosity overlooking your garden I'm sure you would be more than happy to avail of the opportunity to object and seek modifications. You may like a decision here in three/six months but that implies that an application such as this one is watertight, that all regulations were adhered to, that the applicants have consulted with and listened to concerns, measures are included to allow for a sympathetic development. . . .etc etc. When all is ready, apply and things will go smoothly.

Because of the number of written submissions and the seriousness of concerns about the negative impacts of this development, the oral hearing sat for many days. The volume and complexity of the issues raised - I was there - was far greater than I had imagined. Therefore I am not at all surprised that the inspector (who conducted the hearing brilliantly) is not able to complete her full report as quickly as people here would like. As you have said, this is the chance to get it right.

I fully expect ABP to grant permission for the M28 but with modifications and possibly against some of the inspectors recommendations.
The main reason the thing is taking so long is the messing by the applicants who themselves underestimated the problems and didn't deliver an acceptable or watertight proposal, as well as trying to get the application in the day before newer and stringent regulations would apply.
Any modifications, and I would expect many, will be due to the process, the submissions, the contributions at the hearing. Without these and without the process we would indeed be living in less free society.

Aontachtoir

I agree that an open and transparent planning system is a necessity. However, a modern, fit-for-purpose planning system must also be able to deliver final planning decisions in a prompt and predictable timeframe.

In this particular case, I understand why ABP are taking their time. Given the relatively high risk of a frivolous appeal for a High Court review of any permission granted, ABP must make sure that there can be no question that its statutory requirements were fully observed and due process was followed to the letter (the only grounds on which ABP's decision could be overruled). In a way, the longer ABP waits, the lower the likelihood that the steering group or any other group will be willing to take the cost and risk of attempting to stall the project in the High Court.

All that said, the citizens of Ireland are entitled to an efficient planning system. If a planning decision on a relatively short stretch of road - included in two national development plans, and on which thousands of jobs in promised expansions in Ringaskiddy directly and indirectly apply - cannot be made within a year, then the planning system needs to be improved. This is not a criticism of ABP, who I trust are doing all they can with the resources they have, but we do need to be able to move important infrastructure projects through the planning pipeline much faster than we currently do.

marno21

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/special-report-its-too-tough-to-call-in-corks-constituency-of-death-839938.html

Article on Cork South Central in today's Examiner. No surprise at one of the "issues" and who is making racket about it.

I might move to this constituency if a safety and capacity upgrade to a dangerous road which is intended to create employment and develop the region is a major issue.

AugustusMinimus

I suspect the shelving of the data centre in Athenry will not help the “Steering Groups” cause.

spacetweek

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I suspect the shelving of the data centre in Athenry will not help the “Steering Groups” cause.

Why is that? No connection I can see.

marno21

spacetweek wrote: »

Why is that? No connection I can see.

Ridiculously convoluted "environmental" based objections by NIMBYs some of whom have vested interests, resulting in a embarrassingly protracted planning charade that holds up development in an area, which is welcomed by >90% of the area.

Most people in the catchment area of the M28 want this built, they use the road regularly and are positive about the safety and capacity benefits it brings, instead of the "vocal minority" who spend their time on Facebook posting amateur photoshops with no factual basis and complaining about pollution, be it noise or air pollution, which they directly cause themselves by driving around in cars which are far closer to people's homes than the M28 ever will be.

It's a bit like back 10 years ago there were lots of places in Ireland where local communities objected to a new mobile phone mast. Several of these posters were put up by groups, who placed a contact mobile number on the posters. Anyone with a background in the field will know that the human exposure to a mobile handset placed upto someone's ear is hundreds of times that of the human exposure to the signals being radiated from a mobile mast.

Donegal Storm

There was a proposal recently to require environmental groups to prove that they're actually involved in environmental work and to have formed two(?) years before being allowed to lodge an appeal against these types of projects amongst other reforms. Think I read about it on skyscrapercity but haven't heard anything since in the media, anyone know if it's got any substance?

Golfer50

Everyone is entitled to a rant now and again but please . . .

marno21 wrote: »

Ridiculously convoluted "environmental" based objections by NIMBYs some of whom have vested interests, resulting in a embarrassingly protracted planning charade that holds up development in an area, which is welcomed by >90% of the area.

What are you talking about here?
Have you read all the the submissions to be able to dismiss them all?
I’m not embarrassed!
Please explain which objectors have vested interests?
Where did you get your >90% number? Was it the dozen or so keyboard warriors who replied to your questionnaire?

marno21

M28 now to be decided before July 6th 2018. http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/MA0014.htm

A total of 14 months between submission and decision

Golfer50, I will reply to your post when I get home.

marno21

Ok.

Golfer50 wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to a rant now and again but please . . .
What are you talking about here?
Have you read all the the submissions to be able to dismiss them all?
I’m not embarrassed!
Please explain which objectors have vested interests?
Where did you get your >90% number? Was it the dozen or so keyboard warriors who replied to your questionnaire?

What am I talking about?

The objections to the M28 by NIMBYs in Rochestown and surrounds. Can I back this up? Yes. Most of the objections to the scheme have been based on: noise pollution/air pollution/safety issues with the motorway/chemical spills/the motorway being responsible for poisoning children/dust/quango conspiracies to create traffic havoc in Douglas etc. What's the solution to this by the objectors? Route the motorway via the Airport or Ballinhassig. So in other words the people of Ballinhassig can suffer the apparent deaths of children and widescale pollution with no issues. That is textbook NIMBYism.

Have I read the all of submissions? No but if you want to provide them to me I will happily read them. The purpose of the planning process is to deal with these issues, if they are resolvable or will create major issues they will be resolved. "I don't want a motorway so put it somewhere else instead" is not an objection worth listening to.

I didn't say you are/should be embarrassed, that point was directed at the planning system, not related to this scheme in isolation.

I can't remember what I meant by that comment about vested interests so I will withdraw it.

My 90% number. The population along the corridor affected by the M28 is approximately 70,000 or so? Unless the Metropole hotel has greatly increased in size since I last saw it there was less than 1% of the population near the M28 present at the Oral Hearing. If the M28 is such a problem there would have been more there. The M28 Steering Group page has 1,000 likes, and I can't guarantee how many of these are from the area/actual objectors. The page has an overall 2.5 star rating with several negative reviews about them not representing the area at all.

I'll give you an example here of what I mean by a "vocal minority" against the M28, and the Steering Group themselves have addressed this point on their page. When the route for Metrolink was published in late March, a large amount of people connected with Na Fianna and several local schools started making lots of noise against it. The Taoiseach, Minister for Finance and leader of the Opposition have all come out and asked for it to be amended and move the TBM launch site to another location. If there was widespread issues with the M28 as you say it would've been dealt with politically.


EDIT: Vested interests comment was in relation to the objector to the Athenry case from Wicklow. If you don't know the story behind that one Google is more reliable than I am.

Qaz

marno21 wrote: »

Ok.



What am I talking about?

The objections to the M28 by NIMBYs in Rochestown and surrounds. Can I back this up? Yes. Most of the objections to the scheme have been based on: noise pollution/air pollution/safety issues with the motorway/chemical spills/the motorway being responsible for poisoning children/dust/quango conspiracies to create traffic havoc in Douglas etc. What's the solution to this by the objectors? Route the motorway via the Airport or Ballinhassig. So in other words the people of Ballinhassig can suffer the apparent deaths of children and widescale pollution with no issues. That is textbook NIMBYism.

Have I read the all of submissions? No but if you want to provide them to me I will happily read them. The purpose of the planning process is to deal with these issues, if they are resolvable or will create major issues they will be resolved. "I don't want a motorway so put it somewhere else instead" is not an objection worth listening to.

I didn't say you are/should be embarrassed, that point was directed at the planning system, not related to this scheme in isolation.

I can't remember what I meant by that comment about vested interests so I will withdraw it.

My 90% number. The population along the corridor affected by the M28 is approximately 70,000 or so? Unless the Metropole hotel has greatly increased in size since I last saw it there was less than 1% of the population near the M28 present at the Oral Hearing. If the M28 is such a problem there would have been more there. The M28 Steering Group page has 1,000 likes, and I can't guarantee how many of these are from the area/actual objectors. The page has an overall 2.5 star rating with several negative reviews about them not representing the area at all.

I'll give you an example here of what I mean by a "vocal minority" against the M28, and the Steering Group themselves have addressed this point on their page. When the route for Metrolink was published in late March, a large amount of people connected with Na Fianna and several local schools started making lots of noise against it. The Taoiseach, Minister for Finance and leader of the Opposition have all come out and asked for it to be amended and move the TBM launch site to another location. If there was widespread issues with the M28 as you say it would've been dealt with politically.


EDIT: Vested interests comment was in relation to the objector to the Athenry case from Wicklow. If you don't know the story behind that one Google is more reliable than I am.

So many sweeping generalisations. You expect somebody who has genuine and valid concerns to shut up and lie down? Not in a democracy. Routing a motorway along a less densely populated route makes perfect sense. Do you really think 70,000 people live in houses next to the M28? Do you know anything about Cork at all? Counting likes on a Facebook page to support your argument is simply silly and your point about Metrolink is just a red herring and adds nothing to the discussion.

You haven't read all of the submissions? That's obvious. I doubt if you've read any. Yet with a wave of your hand you dismiss all objectors as "textbook" NIMBYs. Maybe you should inform yourself before posting in future.

marno21

Qaz wrote: »

So many sweeping generalisations. You expect somebody who has genuine and valid concerns to shut up and lie down? Not in a democracy. Routing a motorway along a less densely populated route makes perfect sense. Do you really think 70,000 people live in houses next to the M28? Do you know anything about Cork at all? Counting likes on a Facebook page to support your argument is simply silly and your point about Metrolink is just a red herring and adds nothing to the discussion.

You haven't read all of the submissions? That's obvious. I doubt if you've read any. Yet with a wave of your hand you dismiss all objectors as "textbook" NIMBYs. Maybe you should inform yourself before posting in future.

Hi Qaz, welcome to the forum. Thanks for joining and getting involved in the discussion

Can you give me an idea of what your concerns are please ?

I actually said in the last post anyone with a genuine concern should be listened to and taken into account. That's not "I don't like motorways so build it via Ballinhassig instead"

Other routes have populations also and the route via Carrs Hill to the N40 is already there it just needs to be retrofitted with a barrier and some junction adjustments made.

Not all the objections have come from people living directly adjacent to the N28.

I am from Cork

If someone wants to link me to these objections where I can read them I will happily do so

Again, I am not dismissing all objections or tarring everyone with the same brush. It's the vocal militant objectors coming out with the NIMBY objections I am referring to.

Leonard Hofstadter

I am also from Cork (and from very near that neck of the woods) and I want to make it as clear as night follows day that the M28 'Steering Group' does not represent me and many others in the area.

I do not want NIMBYs and the serial whingers and moaners who are doing their best to spread fake news to hold back the development of our city one day longer.

While I would agree that there does need to be a proper road between the Airport and Carrigaline, that should be a link road single carriageway type setup, re-routing the M28 via the Airport is NOT a solution, it's several kilometres longer so everyone will continue using the existing road, which is completely not fit for purpose. It would be a white elephant to build it that way - and that's not even counting the shocking traffic congestion that affects the N27 road as is. If the M28 was routed that way we'd be making the magic roundabout and the N27 even worse - and they cannot cope with the existing traffic volumes.

So, that is a complete non-runner.

Get the M28 built, and get it built now!

We cannot have a small but very vocal minority impeding progress for the other 420,000 people who live within a 15 km radius of the city centre.

DerMutt

Looks like there could be changes to the Bloomfield side of things - there's a full set of traffic measurement cables in place across the junction near where the Gardaí set up at the Northbound diverge to N40 East & West, Southbound from City/West and the Mahon/East slip.

marno21

DerMutt wrote: »

Looks like there could be changes to the Bloomfield side of things - there's a full set of traffic measurement cables in place across the junction near where the Gardaí set up at the Northbound diverge to N40 East & West, Southbound from City/West and the Mahon/East slip.

That could also be to do with the N40 demand management measures

DerMutt

marno21 wrote: »

That could also be to do with the N40 demand management measures

Demand management, aka lights?

marno21

DerMutt wrote: »

Demand management, aka lights?

No just better asset sweating like the M50 and making it an intelligent motorway, VMS signs, signed alternative routes, etc

DerMutt

marno21 wrote: »

alternative routes

ROFL

kub

DerMutt wrote: »

Looks like there could be changes to the Bloomfield side of things - there's a full set of traffic measurement cables in place across the junction near where the Gardaet up at the Northbound diverge to N40 East & West, Southbound from City/West and the Mahon/East slip.

There are a few of them around, there are a few by the Kinsale Road Roundabout as well