Carrigaline Draft TPREP - Transport Strategy 7 Preferred over Strategy 8

 The Draft plan is very detailed and well considered and full credit must be given to all those involved and who made submissions. You can view the full plan in an interactive way here
Our interest obviously is in the Owenabue Bridge Crossing element of the Transport Strategy (Strategy 8) and the elements considered in deeming Strategy 7  as the preferred one.
We would like to hear the thoughts of those interested in this so we can fully form our own response.
The key points of our initial thoughts are as follows:

• Strategy 7 suggests that the North East of Carrigaline is the area likely to grow most and be the area connected with the main jobs centre in Ringaskiddy.
  • We are wondering if this statement has taken into account the large volume of jobs which are focused in the 2 commercial and industrial estates to the South & South East of Carrigaline (also to include the major retail outlets in this area also)
  • The Kilnagleary industrial estate already offers significant employment, including a Primary Care Centre with very clear related transport needs.
  • The Kilnagleary Industrial estate and the related Estuary Business park are initiatives of Cork Co. Co. itself. In the recent past Cork Co. Co. received planning permission for 10 new industrial  sites in the area only one of which is currently built and occupied so this and the 9 to follow will bring their own additional needs. This expansion, as well as the large number of houses currently being built south of the Owenabue and in Crosshaven, suggests that this area might be a bigger area of growth (industrial & residential combined) than the North East area as currently stated in the draft plan.
  • As no commercial/industrial groups  are mentioned as interest groups on page 14, it is not clear if the transport needs (employees, customers and related logistics) have been considered in the plan. It would be interesting to hear if organisations such as Good Fish, Pepsi, Pan Firefly, Harbour Flooring and the many others have had their needs fully considered. Of course those in Cork Co. Co. who manage Kilnagleary would also have their transport needs in order to sustain and grow the industrial centre they are growing & promoting systematically themselves.
  • There are also many others involved in commercial effort to the South and Southeast of Carrigaline;- Griffins Potatoes, Hugh Coveney Trawler Pier  & Green Rebel to name only three, which would have employee transport as well as industrial/agricultural transport needs and it would be interesting to hear if their requirements have been taken into account in the planning consideration.
  • Whilst Sport & Tourism are referenced in the plan, that reference is by way of acknowledging that it is the Department of Transport which includes Sports and Tourism that provides the reference by which such a transport plan can be considered. It is not clear, however, if the plan takes into account the Sport and Toursim needs of Carrigaline. Both Maryville Stables and the Royal Cork Yacht Club stand out as examples to the South and South East of Carrigaline where their sporting infrastructure is the source of traffic, employment & tourism - all with their own particular transport needs.
  • Also much of the tourist attractions around Carrigaline are to the South and South East;- in Crosshaven, Fountainstown and Myrtleville areas. Camden is a standout example with its own growing visitor traffic support needs which Cork County Council itself has an interest in.
  • Taking all of the above points, it is not clear if Strategy 7 actually takes the related very special vehicle needs into account. They will generate traffic which includes, passenger, Industrial, & agricultural vehicles as well as towed vessels & horseboxes and all of these need particular attention which at this point do not seem to be acknowledged in the plan. It is known that towed large yachts always need particular traffic planning and the possibility of substantial elements of wind turbines needing access Green Rebel in Crosshaven may also need consideration.
  • Seperately, the access that Carrigaline provides to an from Crosshaven needs very particular consideration and it is not clear if the plan with Strategy 7 has taken due consideration of the growing needs associated with this. It may be the case that Crosshaven may need to be formally included in the Transport Strategy element of the plan and it is noticed that no Crosshaven interest groups seem to be mentioned on page 14;- suggesting that Crosshaven has not had adequate consideration in the plan.
  • The plan does indeed take into account transport safety, but it is not clear if it takes into account access for safety and emergency response vehicles. The particular requirements of the Coastguard Station in Crosshaven and the Fire Station to the south of the Owenabue River need careful consideration.
  • Strategy 7 mentions the possibility of adding a connecting bridge across the Owenabue in the future but the outline layout as shown does not seem to actually support a viable connection of the two.
  • Strategy 7 also mentions that it would provide 3 routes to the M28. However, it may need to be clarified that these 3 routes are all for the North side of the river and all lead to the same (one only) roundabout junction access to the M28 Motorway for Southlink (Citybound) traffic.
  • Finally, assessment of all the Plans on the basis of Capital Cost and environmental impact would assume that related studies with cost benefit analysis would have to have been done. It is not clear that this is the case. The choice of Transport Strategy 7 means that in a river town  which is growing towards all Cardinal Points and is divided North-South by the river, it would be reasonable to assume that the need for new bridges would be part of the plan. The draft plan does not seem to propose any new bridges. This seems to be unusual when we look around towns of similar size in Ireland an especially our neighbouring towns in Co Cork.  If it is the potential capital costs and environmental impact that might prove as a barrier to bridges , then it would seem important that those costs and those impacts would be fully considered 1st and full cost benefit analysis done. In doing so the additional benefit of a bridge as a potential flood barrier and the related knock-on benefit for minimising repeated detrimental environmental impact could be considered and considered also in terms of receiving cross Department funding.

These are just initial thoughts and questions and we would be very grateful if you could let us know what you think and if there are other issues which we have not considered. Please add as comments below and/or email to  owenabuebc@gmail.com

You can download and read the full Draft Plan as a PDF below

carrigaline_tprep_draft_report.pdf
File Size:	7355 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

---