M28 - Cork to Ringaskiddy [advance works pending; 2024 start]

jank

http://www.corkcoco.ie/co/pdf/5246203.pdf

This one is the proposed N28 cork to ringaskiddy project. This imo needs to be done asap for the sake of industry and carrigaline.

Mod WARNING:
This thread is just for discussing ongoing planning and development and construction when it starts. No discussion of route or route alternatives. Also no discussion of Road Traffic Incidents occurring on any route associated with this road.

The route is waiting Planning decision from ABP. Due 21/12/2017 but postponed till April 2018, subsequently postponed until 6/07/2018.

invincibleirish

going over old ground here but its about time,the most important industrial region in the country is now only getting a decent road,if cie pull their finger out now and realise that most people in carrigaline(most car dependant town in the state) work in ringaskiddy and need a decent bus service to there,fat chance of that happening.

Lorcan26

would a train out there be justifiable? foynes wants a rail link, but it would handle more there than in ringaskiddy no? but there is all the industry in ringaskiddy, but im not sure how many people would needa rail link out there. as invincibleirish said, a regualr bus service would be more appropriate.

jank

I think this would be a great candidate for a light rail of some sort imo like the one there going to have in midleton. It would also pass other densely popultaed areas like douglas and maybe even diverted to mahon.

Anyway just a thought.

Zaph0d

Does anyone know the budget for this road?

Victor

Moved to Infrastructure.

The Word Is Bor

I saw what appeared to be some archaeological investigations (test trenching) taking place just off the existing N28 north of Carrigaline.

cc

to think think the port of cork wanted to move the container terminal to ringaskiddy with the existing road still in place!

Colm R

cc wrote: »

to think think the port of cork wanted to move the container terminal to ringaskiddy with the existing road still in place!

Any idea whats going to happen to Tivoli when it does eventually move.

I'm hoping with everything going on, it will be a smart sustainable development.

The Word Is Bor

Colm R wrote: »

Any idea whats going to happen to Tivoli when it does eventually move.

I'm hoping with everything going on, it will be a smart sustainable development.

The Docklands Plan is dead in the water.

Pun In Ten, Ted

Chris_533976

So is the N28 and any thoughts of a port move.

cc

i have noticed the traffic counters have reappeared just after the bloomfield interchange again...at least they'll have plenty of stats filed when the funds eventually become available for the upgrade :P

Amtmann

For what it's worth, the brochures are here: http://www.corkrdo.ie/files/N28Bloomfield%28merge%29.pdf and here: http://www.corkrdo.ie/files/N28%20Brochure%20130308.pdf

Chris_533976

I've always been impressed with the plans, they've managed to get a fairly simple looking DC into a very restricted area.

Amtmann

Chris_533976 wrote: »

I've always been impressed with the plans, they've managed to get a fairly simple looking DC into a very restricted area.

The plans do seem excellent. Having been on the N28 a lot recently I can really see that the old road is actually bursting at the seams. No right turns are permitted onto any of the junctions from the N25 to Carrigaline, and traffic flows are very constant and heavy. Unfortunately the proposed road has been suspended indefinitely.

corktina

I suspect many locals would use the alternative route into Douglas village or branching off that over Grange.
The N28 can get fairly busy but mostly at rush hour or ferry sailing times.Ive nver had a problem with it and theres only one fairly short bit that needs sorting out before carrigaline which is where the majority of the traffic will be headed.

Amtmann

Just found these articles in the Examiner from summer 2010.

Claim failure to upgrade road would cost €59bn

THE south-west region could lose more than €59 billion in trade in the next 25 years if the Government fails to upgrade the main road between Cork and Ringaskiddy.

The startling claim came in a report commissioned by Cork Chamber which highlights the risk to trade if the N28 isn’t upgraded to serve the proposed Port of Cork’s new terminal in Ringaskiddy. The report, prepared by Indecon International Economic Consultants, stated upgrading the road to dual carriageway is "a key catalyst project that deserves priority status".

Cork Chamber president Ger O’Mahoney said the N28 was crucial to the success of the region. The estimated cost is €163 million, which local business leaders suggested was a pittance compared with the losses which could be accrued if the project didn’t get the go-ahead.

"The analysis and assessment in this report highlights the strong economic arguments for the upgrade of the N28 road scheme. Not only is the planned upgrade of the N28 a vital part of the external and internal connectivity of the south-west region, it would also represent the removal of a significant constraint to the international competitiveness of the region," Mr O’Mahony said. He said the failure to upgrade the N28 would have severe competitive and economic implications for the region from the probable damage to external connectivity through the Port of Cork

Kevin Murray, chairman of the chamber’s transport and infrastructure committee, said the upgrade would also relieve commuter congestion, provide transportation capacity required to meet expected growth in freight traffic and copper-fasten the role of the N28 as a strategic national primary route.

"The current situation whereby Ringaskiddy, an international pharmaceutical cluster, is served from Cork by a sub-standard narrow single-carriageway road is completely unacceptable, Mr Murray said.

IDA regional manager Ray O’Connor said Ringaskiddy was a major zone for development. "We have several hundred acres of land there which are still vacant. If the road was in place it would be very attractive for inward investment, especially as all the other infrastructure is in place there," Mr O’Connor said.

County manager Martin Riordan said he concurred with the report’s view that upgrading the N28 was of strategic regional importance and is well deserving of national funding.

He said the council would be in a position to proceed with the project once funding is made available. "It remains a key element in our infrastructure planning for the Cork Metropolitan Region in partnership with Cork City Council," Mr Riordan said.

This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Thursday, July 01, 2010


Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/claim-failure-to-upgrade-road-would-cost-euro59bn-123797.html#ixzz10XuiXTbu

Port to submit revised €50m terminal plan

THE Port of Cork is to submit a revised plan for a new €50 million container terminal in Ringaskiddy, although not on the same site which was previously refused by Bord Pleanála.

Two years ago the planning appeals board rejected the port’s plans for a container terminal at the Oysterbank. Now, after reviewing five shortlisted alternatives, the port has decided the ideal location for the terminal will be adjacent to the ferry terminal at Ringaskiddy.

The port’s chief executive Brendan Keating said the company could also carry out some future operations at Marino Point, but would have to acquire the former IFI site before they could lodge any planning applications there.

Mr Keating said it was hoped to apply for permission for the cargo terminal during 2012 and, all going according to plan, start construction in early 2104. The terminal would take 14 months to construct. The project represented the first part of a 20-year phased plan to upgrade the port’s handling facilities.

"After the first phase further developments will follow a business case and capacity needs," he said.

Mr Keating said that while the Tivoli terminal was still functioning well, it was coming under pressure and a new terminal was needed to deal with the ever increasing size of container ships.

He acknowledged that the Port of Cork would have to persuade Bord Pleanála to change its mind on Ringaskiddy being proper place for a deep water cargo handling facility.

The planning appeals board turned down the previous application on a number of grounds. Firstly, it felt too much pressure would be put on the N28 (Cork-Ringaskiddy road) with the number of lorries generated by the project.

In addition, it was felt that the Jack Lynch Tunnel wouldn’t be able to handle extra traffic and Bord Pleanála also believed a deep water cargo handling facility needed a rail connection.

"We were very perplexed at the reasons for the refusal and we will have to address that with Bord Pleanála," Mr Keating said.

He said the National Roads Authority (NRA) had given a commitment to upgrade the N28.

The NRA has also indicated it is planning a major upgrade of the Jack Lynch Tunnell/Dunkettle roundabout interchange.

The Port of Cork chief executive acknowledged that while a rail link could be easily created to Marino Point, off the Cork-Cobh line, it was unlikely one would ever be built to Ringaskiddy.

However, Mr Keating said Ringaskiddy is already associated with considerable port activity and port investment.

The port authorities will be consulting with customers and stakeholders again on it plans in the coming weeks.

This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Friday, June 18, 2010


Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfcwcwqlmhsn/rss2/#ixzz10XvDKyHG

Amtmann

The Indecon N28 "Cork to World" Report is attached below.

Limerick74

I see Cork County Council have recently advertised on etenders for Consultants to progress the N28 scheme through the EIA and planning process. Closing date for prequalification is the 6th September.

annfield1978

The prequal states the following

For the Management and Design team, have undertaken a course introducing the principles of Safety Healh and Welfare at work (Construction) Regulations 2006 - 2013 with particular regard to the service providors duties and other those regulation. The course should be approved by their relevant registration body or in the absence of a registration a professional body appropriate to the service provider in question.

What does this mean in reality?

Victor

annfield1978 wrote: »

The prequal states the following

For the Management and Design team, have undertaken a course introducing the principles of Safety Healh and Welfare at work (Construction) Regulations 2006 - 2013 with particular regard to the service providors duties and other those regulation. The course should be approved by their relevant registration body or in the absence of a registration a professional body appropriate to the service provider in question.

What does this mean in reality?

The design team need basic health and safety qualifications.

AugustusMinimus

Good. Fully dualling Bloomfield to Ringaskiddy could achieve the following things.

1. The future possibility of moving all Port of Cork activities to Ringaskiddy.
2. Further growth of Ringaskiddy as an industrial zone.
3. Further growth of Carrigaline as a commuter town.
4. The possibility of alternative access to Cork Airport via a new road from above Douglas to Cork Airport Roundabout.

Baldilocks

Cork, Limerick Foynes and Dublin were all given tier one Port status recently. My understanding of this is that it comes with some European funding. (to develop the port - not the roads).
The current road is not suitable to be handling the significant HGV traffic that will result from the moving of container traffic from Tivoli down to Ringaskiddy.

AugustusMinimus

I'm guessing as this is an offline build, they are planning this as HQDC which would potentially give it a 120kph speed limit.

I wouldn't mind seeing this scheme and the N40 being given motorway status. Too many times I've seen tractors and cyclists on the N40. It's just plain dangerous.

marmurr1916

Can't new regulations be implemented to ban certain types of users from dual-carriageways (i.e. pedestrians, cyclists, animals, animal-drawn vehicles, agricultural vehicles*, motorbikes/mopeds/other vehicles not capable of at least 60 km/h*)?

If this was done on all dual-carriageways, the speed limits could be increased to at least 110 km/h, with limits of 120 km/h on suitable HQDC sections.

I don't think the limit on the N40 will ever be increased to 120 km/h even if it becomes M40. It would be more likely to retain a 100 km/h speed limit, just like the M50.

AFAIK, electronic signs which would enable variable speed limits to be applied are being installed on the M50. These could be installed on the N40 also.

There could be scope for variable speed limits, with 100 km/h during daytime hours and 120 km/h overnight (from say 9pm to 6am).

If suitable regulations were made, the times/speed limits could be varied according to circumstances (traffic levels, road conditions etc).

*which should also be banned from motorways

AugustusMinimus

marmurr1916 wrote: »

Can't new regulations be implemented to ban certain types of users from dual-carriageways (i.e. pedestrians, cyclists, animals, animal-drawn vehicles, agricultural vehicles*, motorbikes/mopeds/other vehicles not capable of at least 60 km/h*)?

Might as well just reclassify as motorway.

marmurr1916 wrote: »

If this was done on all dual-carriageways, the speed limits could be increased to at least 110 km/h, with limits of 120 km/h on suitable HQDC sections.

I don't think the limit on the N40 will ever be increased to 120 km/h even if it becomes M40. It would be more likely to retain a 100 km/h speed limit, just like the M50.

AFAIK, electronic signs which would enable variable speed limits to be applied are being installed on the M50. These could be installed on the N40 also.

There could be scope for variable speed limits, with 100 km/h during daytime hours and 120 km/h overnight (from say 9pm to 6am).

If suitable regulations were made, the times/speed limits could be varied according to circumstances (traffic levels, road conditions etc).

*which should also be banned from motorways

With the N40 being an urban road, I can't see a 120kph limit ever being applied.

marmurr1916

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Might as well just reclassify as motorway.

Nope. Learner drivers need somewhere to practice...

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

With the N40 being an urban road, I can't see a 120kph limit ever being applied.

Just like the M50. Although the possibility of variable speed limits could mean a 120 km/h limit at certain times. If the M50 is suitable for variable speed limits, then so is the N40.

Victor

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I'm guessing as this is an offline build, they are planning this as HQDC which would potentially give it a 120kph speed limit.

It has the hint of industrial estate access road about it.

I wouldn't mind seeing this scheme and the N40 being given motorway status. Too many times I've seen tractors and cyclists on the N40. It's just plain dangerous.

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

With the N40 being an urban road, I can't see a 120kph limit ever being applied.

The N40 isn't suitable to be a motorway or 120km/h - too many substandard junctions, poor vertical and horizontal sight lines, adverse camber, lack of hard shoulders, etc.

AugustusMinimus

The only substandard junction I can think of is the Bloomfield Junction. And that is only the N40 East - Rochestown junction which is a bit tight.

The N40 needs to ban cyclists and pedestrians. Simply too dangerous.

The only place there is a lack of a hard shoulder is on the Douglas flyover and where is there adverse camber on the N40 ?

Chris_5339762

And despite popular rumour the buildings are all well back from the flyover so in the distant future a new flyover is completely possible.

The Browser

So has the N28 scheme been taken out of mothballs?