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

gerogerigegege

L1011 wrote: »

ABP does not give much truck to price-obsessed NIMBYs, thankfully. Nothing has changed since last time you battered on about it.

links to back this up.

c montgomery

gerogerigegege wrote: »

not wanting to destroy a wooded area is a concern. there's already high noise levels in the area. People don't want anymore increases in sound pollution.

What's your alternative?

gerogerigegege

c montgomery wrote: »

What's your alternative?

that's the job of the highly paid engineers.
NIMBY thanks.

cc

gerogerigegege wrote: »

that's the job of the highly paid engineers.
NIMBY thanks.

Well if that's the kind of submission you've put forward during public consultation I'd say keep going, road might get an early start

gerogerigegege

cc wrote: »

Well if that's the kind of submission you've put forward during public consultation I'd say keep going, road might get an early start

should the engineers not seek another route if asked to do so by the concerned public?
that is their job.

c montgomery

gerogerigegege wrote: »

that's the job of the highly paid engineers.
NIMBY thanks.

They already have a plan, the one you don't like.

Do you really not have an alternative idea?

L1011

c montgomery wrote: »

They already have a plan, the one you don't like.

Do you really not have an alternative idea?

Last time around, he posted links to an "alternative" that it turned out he hadn't even read; asking people to send off a form letter he also hadn't even read. Seems every few Saturdays we have to put up with King NIMBY decreeing the road must not happen without any alternative.

c montgomery

gerogerigegege wrote: »

should the engineers not seek another route if asked to do so by the concerned public?
that is their job.

Depends on the concerns, it's there full of self interest and deemed trivial they will be ignored for the benefit of the motoring public.

gerogerigegege

c montgomery wrote: »

They already have a plan, the one you don't like.

Do you really not have an alternative idea?

they need to make another. They are the experts, not the general public.

L1011

c montgomery wrote: »

Depends on the concerns, it's there full of self interest and deemed trivial they will be ignored for the benefit of the motoring public.

Remove the word "motoring" there. The scheme as planned is of huge benefit to the public - in general. Anyone who has to suffer the congestion, pollution it creates etc as well as everyone who buys anything that goes through Ringaskiddy.

gerogerigegege

L1011 wrote: »

Last time around, he posted links to an "alternative" that it turned out he hadn't even read; asking people to send off a form letter he also hadn't even read. Seems every few Saturdays we have to put up with King NIMBY decreeing the road must not happen without any alternative.

this really has you raging hasnt it

cc

gerogerigegege wrote: »

should the engineers not seek another route if asked to do so by the concerned public?
that is their job.

If there is a coherent, researched and structured argument to be made, yes.

c montgomery

gerogerigegege wrote: »

they need to make another. They are the experts, not the general public.

I'm new to this thread so it took some time to realise what I was dealing with.

I'll not bother with you anymore.

L1011

gerogerigegege wrote: »

they need to make another. They are the experts, not the general public.

The burden of proof is on those who claim there is an alternative. Crying "I don't want this (cause I think it'll make my house worth less, because I think my home is an investment and I read the Daily Wail)" doesn't equate to there being an alternative.

If you can come up with an alternative - and stop with the Daily Wail style arguments - people might debate you. Without that, you are a screeching NIMBY.

gerogerigegege

cc wrote: »

If there is a coherent, researched and structured argument to be made, yes.

you don't consider destroying a wooded area again right beside peoples homes an argument?

Ludo

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Mount Oval is used as a rat run to access garryduff and Moneygurney travelling south on the N28. This is because the junction with the N28 and the Rochestown Road and the N28 is clogged at rush hour.

Yep...I use it myself every day as a rat run on the way home from work, but not for the reason you think. The minor upgrade of the junction of rochestown road and clarkes hill is not going to help much without upgrading the roads in the area in general.

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

The upgraded Carrs Hill junction will provide an additional exit onto the old Carrigaline Road and Maryborough Hill via a new access road. Will make things a lot better.

Can you elaborate by the way how it will make things worse?

It may make things worse as more cars will now potentially travel up Coach Hill to access the N28 south which they cant do currently. And Coach Hill needs to be widened as is it now without putting more traffic onto it with no plans to deal with the issue. There is no footpath and barely room for 2 cars to pass as is. It is very dangerous for pedestrians now as cars flly through the narrow section at times without due care.

It prob wont make much of a difference though so no big deal.

cc wrote: »

Waste of money? The years of bottle neck between shannonpark roundabout and the N40 is getting lost here with all the rochestown talk, never mind the development of Ringaskiddy port. Some of you need to realise you are living in an Urban area not West Cork.

No doubt the road needs to be upgraded. No need for a motorway though which won't allow cyclists anyway of course.

AugustusMinimus

L1011 wrote: »

Remove the word "motoring" there. The scheme as planned is of huge benefit to the public - in general. Anyone who has to suffer the congestion, pollution it creates etc as well as everyone who buys anything that goes through Ringaskiddy.

The pollution argument is a complete mcguffin.

The reduction in congestion would lead to a reduction in pollution if anything.

L1011

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

The pollution argument is a complete mcguffin.

The reduction in congestion would lead to a reduction in pollution if anything.

That was my point - although possibly you were on the same tack.

gerogerigegege

L1011 wrote: »

The burden of proof is on those who claim there is an alternative. Crying "I don't want this (cause I think it'll make my house worth less, because I think my home is an investment and I read the Daily Wail)" doesn't equate to there being an alternative.

you're beginning to sound silly now. maybe take a break for yourself:)

L1011

gerogerigegege wrote: »

you're beginning to sound silly now. maybe take a break for yourself:)

Come up with an alternative, rather than screeching about what has been proposed.

You posted, repeatedly, about an apparent alternative before and then denied knowledge of it. Waiting a few weeks hoping we'd forget doesn't work.

You were also directed to the Cork forums to discuss non construction related content. Why haven't you?

gerogerigegege

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

The pollution argument is a complete mcguffin.

The reduction in congestion would lead to a reduction in pollution if anything.

an increase in articulated lorries on the road, destruction of woodland areas. emissions closer to peoples homes.
nothing to see here.:D

AugustusMinimus

Ludo wrote: »

It may make things worse as more cars will now potentially travel up Coach Hill to access the N28 south which they cant do currently. And Coach Hill needs to be widened as is it now without putting more traffic onto it with no plans to deal with the issue. There is no footpath and barely room for 2 cars to pass as is. It is very dangerous for pedestrians now as cars flly through the narrow section at times without due care.

It prob wont make much of a difference though so no big deal.

Doubt people would go that far out of their way and use Coach Hill though. Agreed on the fact that a section of Coach Hill badly needs to be widened.

I wouldn't mind a new road from the top of Clarke's Hill to the Monastery Road by the way.

gerogerigegege

L1011 wrote: »

Come up with an alternative, rather than screeching about what has been proposed.

You posted, repeatedly, about an apparent alternative before and then denied knowledge of it. Waiting a few weeks hoping we'd forget doesn't work.

You were also directed to the Cork forums to discuss non construction related content. Why haven't you?

I posted a petition to call for an alternative.
if you read back I pointed this out to you because you failed to understand.
NIMBY. thanks.

L1011

gerogerigegege wrote: »

I posted a petition to call for an alternative.
if you read back I pointed this out to you because you failed to understand.
NIMBY. thanks.

No, you asked people to write in citing an alternative. That didn't exist. Becuase you hadn't actually read what you asked people to do.

Why you think things are different a few weeks later astounds me.

c montgomery

Loads of pharma plants in ringaskiddy want this, the navy Base want it, the ferry/cargo port want it and the majority of the people in carraigaline.

I don't think a few concerned residents are going to prevent it going ahead. Money talks and the pharma plants are rolling in it.

cc

gerogerigegege wrote: »

you don't consider destroying a wooded area again right beside peoples homes an argument?

You'd have to tell me how many acres, the type of trees, is it mature, is it public or private land etc or you could start with a google map link if that's not too much trouble

gerogerigegege

wooded area is to the left of the road (which had destroyed the majority of the area) on the right of the photo. not sure of size etc.
extremely close to the houses in Rochestown Rise etc
http://ie.geoview.info/rochestown_rise,29748456w

cc

gerogerigegege wrote: »

wooded area is to the left of the road (which had destroyed the majority of the area) on the right of the photo. not sure of size etc.
extremely close to the houses in Rochestown Rise etc
http://ie.geoview.info/rochestown_rise,29748456w

Thanks for posting. In an urban area I wouldn't be looking to reroute a motorway for that unless it was protected. I think it would you have a better chance in trying to get new trees planted along the route to offset their loss.

c montgomery

gerogerigegege wrote: »

wooded area is to the left of the road (which had destroyed the majority of the area) on the right of the photo. not sure of size etc.
extremely close to the houses in Rochestown Rise etc
http://ie.geoview.info/rochestown_rise,29748456w

I used to live on Marlborough Hill close to that "wooded area" . It's unused land that even teenagers don't use for drinking. No walks or anything there. Nothing worth keeping.
If that's one of the points your objecting on you won't get very far.

gerogerigegege

c montgomery wrote: »

I used to live on Marlborough Hill close to that "wooded area" . It's unused land that even teenagers don't use for drinking. No walks or anything there. Nothing worth keeping.
If that's one of the points your objecting on you won't get very far.

plenty use it. I go there myself.