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

Golfer50

Thanks for that however

Hibernicis wrote: »

The concept of awarding a 2 phase contract was a good one. . . . But in reality we are no worse off than if this had gone through the conventional approach .

The theory of two phase contracts may make sense but this experience and that with the children’s hospital are surely proof that they haven’t worked too well. If the objective is to get something built in a timely manner then it appears that this approach has not worked to our benefit.
I also think history will show that this has proved to be a more costly route for the public purse in both cases in the long run.

Aontachtoir

Golfer50 wrote: »

Thanks for that however


The theory of two phase contracts may make sense but this experience and that with the children’s hospital are surely proof that they haven’t worked too well. If the objective is to get something built in a timely manner then it appears that this approach has not worked to our benefit.
I also think history will show that this has proved to be a more costly route for the public purse in both cases in the long run.

I thought the problem with the children's hospital was that it was NOT done as a two-phase contract, which led to massive cost inflation, and Dunkettle went back to tender to avoid a similar outcome.

kub

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I thought the problem with the children's hospital was that it was NOT done as a two-phase contract, which led to massive cost inflation, and Dunkettle went back to tender to avoid a similar outcome.

How is it possible to make a building a two phase contract?
I can see how it can be done with a civil project but a building has me confused

Golfer50

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I thought the problem with the children's hospital was that it was NOT done as a two-phase contract, which led to massive cost inflation, and Dunkettle went back to tender to avoid a similar outcome.

Apologies if I was wrong about this. I just recall the hassle about rising costs and the possibility of retendering.

marno21

MOD:

I haven't had a chance to address this thread but I will now. I have deleted some posts from this thread and there will be no further uncivil behaviour tolerated here. This was made crystal clear several times in the past when other threads had to be locked because of it. I fully admit that I was responsible for causing some of this in the past.

In the event that there is no appeal to the High Court's decision - it's high time we moved on from discussion of the objectors and onto the road.

And finally, no calling out other posters or attacking them. Zero tolerance on this. Everyone is entitled to their view on this thread - in a civil manner.

marno21

Hibernicis wrote: »

Correct. The quarry is a the rear of the site. This is the facebook page belong to the group who are advocating the protection of the quarry, there are some photos if you scroll down:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1827331937531937/

The road was originally routed through Fernhill GC (now closed) which is located to the south of the quarry but was rerouted to avoid the golf club. As well as routing the road through the quarry it is planned to extract a considerable amount of rock from the quarry to use elsewhere in the construction of the road.

Fernhill Golf Club is up for sale now, it's fairly prime development land especially with the Shannonpark improvements and the houses going up on the R611 near the roundabout. It's a far better idea to expand Carrigaline north than more houses in the south with the town gridlocked.

The road passed Fernhill could do with some improvement though, it's a high speed rat run with barely enough room for 2 cars to pass and the railway bridge is a mess too. That said, it's fairly ideal for access right beside the future Shannonpark Interchange.

mydiscworld

danny004 wrote: »

I dont think they will appeal first costs are awarded on the 23rd so they will lose their own 100k but probably avoid the councils cost and they were lucky to get funding for this appeal.

Do we know what happened with the costs on the 23rd?

Can you view court transcripts online?

Flesh Gorden

Happy 15th birthday to this thread. :pac:

Hopefully, we don't need 15 more years of posts to get the thing built and operating.

Pauliedragon

Where are we at exactly lads? When I search for latest info I seem to get conflicting stories. Is there another appeal or is the go ahead locked in?

Cork Trucker

Pauliedragon wrote: »

Where are we at exactly lads? When I search for latest info I seem to get conflicting stories. Is there another appeal or is the go ahead locked in?

The written judgement is being published later this months, once that is received, the 'objectors' ;egal team will advise whether an appeal is worthwhile. I think the cut off for an appeal to be lodged is January 23rd or thereabouts

AugustusMinimus

Did the Steering Group get awarded costs for the initial appeal. What’s the likely costs of a further appeal?

danny004

The High Court Search site has costs listed for 23rd Jan. I assume the council will be stuck with their own costs as is normally the case . An appeal to the supreme court I would doubt it anyway because

• They sounded beaten and not defiant the day of the judgement
• They dont have the funds
• I imagine its career suicide for a barrister to go to the supreme court without a very strong case to present to 5 judges

Pardon the pun but I think they have run out of road

Hibernicis

danny004 wrote: »

The High Court Search site has costs listed for 23rd Jan. I assume the council will be stuck with their own costs as is normally the case . An appeal to the supreme court I would doubt it anyway because

• They sounded beaten and not defiant the day of the judgement
• They dont have the funds
• I imagine its career suicide for a barrister to go to the supreme court without a very strong case to present to 5 judges

Pardon the pun but I think they have run out of road

Agree with all of the above. Also remember that:

an appeal to the Court of Appeal would require the High Court to grant leave to appeal
an appeal direct to the Supreme Court would require the permission of the Supreme Court in order to proceed

Either of the above would be based on a “the high court judge erred in law” type of argument, not on the merits/demerits of the road per say.

Taking it to Europe would also require leave and would be based on Ireland's failure to implement or correctly interpret a European requirement.

So any of these appeal routes really has to be based on a single point/failure. This is actually a very high bar, much higher than it might appear. And the costs escalate very quickly at this level.

Take for example the Apple Data Centre case. Approved by the County Council and ABP. The High Court granted leave to appeal, heard the case, dismissed it and refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court accepted a request for a direct appeal, on the single point, this being "the extent to which An Bord Pleanala was obliged to assess the environmental impact of the entire Apple masterplan for eight data halls rather than just the first phase which had received permission”. The Supreme Court accepted the case (and continued to hear it after Apple cancelled the plan) because of the importance of this legal point for future data centre planning applications. The appeal failed when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that ABP was not obliged to carry out a full EIA on the entire plan. The Supreme Court also refused to refer the issues for ruling by the European Court of Justice. And finally, and most importantly, the Supreme Court ruled that each side was to pay their own costs !

I genuinely hope for everybody’s sake that the Steering Group pack up their tent and go home. This very small, non-democratic and largely invisible and unaccountable ad hoc group have had their day out (at very considerable expense to the taxpayer), the decision has been subjected to an extensive review by the High Court and upheld and it really is time for everybody to move on and alleviate the suffering of thousands of commuters and other road users.

BelfastVanMan

Hibernicis wrote: »

Agree with all of the above. Also remember that:

an appeal to the Court of Appeal would require the High Court to grant leave to appeal
an appeal direct to the Supreme Court would require the permission of the Supreme Court in order to proceed

Either of the above would be based on a “the high court judge erred in law” type of argument, not on the merits/demerits of the road per say.

Taking it to Europe would also require leave and would be based on Ireland's failure to implement or correctly interpret a European requirement.

So any of these appeal routes really has to be based on a single point/failure. This is actually a very high bar, much higher than it might appear. And the costs escalate very quickly at this level.

Take for example the Apple Data Centre case. Approved by the County Council and ABP. The High Court granted leave to appeal, heard the case, dismissed it and refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court accepted a request for a direct appeal, on the single point, this being "the extent to which An Bord Pleanala was obliged to assess the environmental impact of the entire Apple masterplan for eight data halls rather than just the first phase which had received permission”. The Supreme Court accepted the case (and continued to hear it after Apple cancelled the plan) because of the importance of this legal point for future data centre planning applications. The appeal failed when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that ABP was not obliged to carry out a full EIA on the entire plan. The Supreme Court also refused to refer the issues for ruling by the European Court of Justice. And finally, and most importantly, the Supreme Court ruled that each side was to pay their own costs !

I genuinely hope for everybody’s sake that the Steering Group pack up their tent and go home. This very small, non-democratic and largely invisible and unaccountable ad hoc group have had their day out (at very considerable expense to the taxpayer), the decision has been subjected to an extensive review by the High Court and upheld and it really is time for everybody to move on and alleviate the suffering of thousands of commuters and other road users.

Beautifully said.

marno21

Project Ireland 2040 documents published today suggest that this will go to tender in 2023. Which will mean a 2024 start and a 2026/2027 opening.

Cork Trucker

marno21 wrote: »

Project Ireland 2040 documents published today suggest that this will go to tender in 2023. Which will mean a 2024 start and a 2026/2027 opening.

Dunkettle will be first built then?

kub

marno21 wrote: »

Project Ireland 2040 documents published today suggest that this will go to tender in 2023. Which will mean a 2024 start and a 2026/2027 opening.

Why such a time lag? This is 2020 and is it EU funds that are paying for this road ?
So it will take them 3 years before going to tender? That seems like ages, is this normal with such civil works ?

Limerick74

kub wrote: »

Why such a time lag? This is 2020 and is it EU funds that are paying for this road ?
So it will take them 3 years before going to tender? That seems like ages, is this normal with such civil works ?

This NDP document was probably prepared before the high court decision so perhaps allowing for further legal delays.

Chris_5339762

Also I think Dunkettle has to be done before this can be started. Not sure where that came from originally but it appears to be the case.

Edit: Dunkettle really is holding a lot up.

marno21

TII regional manager said in September 3 years of advance works required between service diversions, preparatory works on Rochestown Road and potential further legal issues.

If the legal case ends here you'd hope they launch gung ho into advance works in Q2 of this year.

Dunkettle should be open before work starts on this barring any further exceptional events with Dunkettle

kub

marno21 wrote: »

TII regional manager said in September 3 years of advance works required between service diversions, preparatory works on Rochestown Road and potential further legal issues.

If the legal case ends here you'd hope they launch gung ho into advance works in Q2 of this year.

Dunkettle should be open before work starts on this barring any further exceptional events with Dunkettle

Could they not construct both in tandem, with this starting below in Ringaskiddy and by the time it gets up to Bloomfield, have Dunkettle complete ?

Or is joined up thinking out of the question in this country?

marno21

kub wrote: »

Could they not construct both in tandem, with this starting below in Ringaskiddy and by the time it gets up to Bloomfield, have Dunkettle complete ?

Or is joined up thinking out of the question in this country?

Dunkettle and the M28 are completely unrelated, the M28 won’t be ready to start until Dunkettle is done just by the way things have worked out rather than any intrinsic reason

Both schemes have had 1.5 year delays attached to them, Dunkettle with the retendering and M28 from the High Court challenge

Golfer50

From EIS . .. N8/N25 Dunkettle Interchange Improvement Scheme.
This project is thus considered to be completed in the future year Do‐ Minimum scenario as TII have confirmed that the Dunkettle Interchange Scheme will be constructed and open to traffic in advance of the proposed M28 Road Project. Thus, the future year analysis assumes that the future year Do‐Minimum road network will be the same as the base year network plus the proposed upgrade of the Dunkettle Interchange. Therefore, the future year analysis assumes no “bottleneck” for traffic at Dunkettle.

kub

Golfer50 wrote: »

From EIS . .. N8/N25 Dunkettle Interchange Improvement Scheme.
This project is thus considered to be completed in the future year Do‐ Minimum scenario as TII have confirmed that the Dunkettle Interchange Scheme will be constructed and open to traffic in advance of the proposed M28 Road Project. Thus, the future year analysis assumes that the future year Do‐Minimum road network will be the same as the base year network plus the proposed upgrade of the Dunkettle Interchange. Therefore, the future year analysis assumes no “bottleneck” for traffic at Dunkettle.

I have no wish to derail this thread but between Dunkettle and the M28, have TII even considered the bottle neck that will be on the M40 over Douglas Village?
Did any of you notice any mention of that in their publication?


If not, I cannot say I am in anyway surprised with the usual lack of future planning in this country.
Also I do not mean to be making any reference whatsoever to any of the notions and silly suggestions bought up by the steering group.

Aontachtoir

kub wrote: »

If not, I cannot say I am in anyway surprised with the usual lack of future planning in this country.

I think you're being a bit hard on TII. Civil servants don't have a magic money tree to shake. Nor do the government, to be fair. I'm sure the relevant people are aware that the Douglas flyover is a challenge.

kub

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I think you're being a bit hard on TII. Civil servants don't have a magic money tree to shake. Nor do the government, to be fair. I'm sure the relevant people are aware that the Douglas flyover is a challenge.

I agree Civil Servants do not have a magic money tree, all I was wondering was, is the concern about a future issue even mentioned?

It does not take a genius to see what is going to occur there.
To me a proper report would mention future concerns as a result of planned changes.

Pete_Cavan

kub wrote: »

I agree Civil Servants do not have a magic money tree, all I was wondering was, is the concern about a future issue even mentioned?

It does not take a genius to see what is going to occur there.
To me a proper report would mention future concerns as a result of planned changes.

Maybe these things have been considered and the future planning approach is to solve the problems we have funding to solve now, then solve the other problems later.

Would you prefer nothing is done until every problem is going to be solved in one hit but ignoring the fact that that level of funding is not going to be made available?

hans aus dtschl

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Maybe these things have been considered and the future planning approach is to solve the problems we have funding to solve now, then solve the other problems later.

Would you prefer nothing is done until every problem is going to be solved in one hit but ignoring the fact that that level of funding is not going to be made available?

Yeah but I think where kub might be coming from is that this process of looking at all of the projects in isolation rather than the whole transport network (like CMATS) is partly why we're getting a constant drip-feed of small-to-medium roads projects and a dearth of meaningful sustainable transport projects.

It means we're in a continual cycle of "fix that small bit of road, there" rather than "we can't continue with 70% of people bringing their couch and armchairs to work".

Then we all get a lecture about how we need to change our ways and become more sustainable.
There's a bit of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds going on. Aspirations towards integrated travel systems, while funding mostly isolated roads projects.

Spaffing money up the wall, as Alexander Borris von Pfeffel Johnson might say!

marno21

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/group-challenging-cork-ringaskiddy-motorway-to-consider-appealing-court-ruling-1.4133888

The Irish Times as usual with the free PR for infrastructural objections full of items of questionable legitimacy.

AugustusMinimus

Setup to represent 10,000 residents. What a load of bull****.