Limerick Northern Distributor Road Plan

Cookiemunster

damowill wrote: »

What does Phase 1 of the NDR road actually achieve? Cant see much usage and not sure where its going to alleviate traffic

As I said above. It's not phase 1 of the LNDR. it's a stand alone project who's purpose is to provide a second access to Moyross.

Berty

If it's just an access to Moyross then they can expect the traffic to increase in the area. The locals asked for this route after all but I highly expect them to complain that people, other than themselves, are using it.

I know I'd use it coming from Shannon to get to the Long Pavement because the alternative up past Thomond Park can get incredibly busy.

Glenomra

Many people will use it to bypass Parteen completely by going through Meelick and crossing on to the Killaloe road at Barry's Shop.

johnmolloy554

zulutango wrote: »

Unlikely to ever happen.

Why do you say that?

Glenomra

A variety of reasons but the main one imo is their intention to build the largest ever river crossing in Ireland across one of the most extensive floodplains of the River Shannon. If you look at the Google map, you can trace the crossing, from Srawickeen in Clare to Lisnagry across the infamous Springfield floodplain, where houses were flooded relatively recently. Why the planners picked this route when they could easily have avoided the floodplain baffles not just me but everybody familiar with the landscape. Planning difficulties not to mention court action on environmental grounds are inevitable. Even if this was not a problem, the Nra are refusing permission to the council to link with the mackey roundabout, to avoid undermining the tunnel finances even more.

Reputable Rog

Glenomra wrote: »

Many people will use it to bypass Parteen completely by going through Meelick and crossing on to the Killaloe road at Barry's Shop.

Amen.

nim1bdeh38l2cw

zulutango wrote: »

Nah, I just want to live in a thriving city which can offer a good life and employment to its citizens. Bad planning works against that.

You should move to one so!

OfTheMarsWongs

Haven’t been down Cratloe Road in a few months.

Have they stuck a roundabout at the country club or will the Connagh Cross to Cratloe Road section remain closed till the whole thing is complete as far as Moyross?

Cookiemunster

OfTheMarsWongs wrote: »

Haven’t been down Cratloe Road in a few months.

Have they stuck a roundabout at the country club or will the Connagh Cross to Cratloe Road section remain closed till the whole thing is complete as far as Moyross?

All they've done to now is build the embankment to the Old Cratloe Rd. There's no surface on it. The only road laid down was widening the entrance to the shopping center. The second stage taking it from there to Knockalisheen is due to start next spring.

BobMc

Glenomra wrote: »

Many people will use it to bypass Parteen completely by going through Meelick and crossing on to the Killaloe road at Barry's Shop.

Yep from out that neck of the woods, and thats what will happen I'm figuring with traffic from shannon, that road thru meelick is not the best, particularly the tight blind bends uphill towards quinpool, it'll make a bit of a rat run

zulutango

Yeah, I suppose a Meelick bypass will be needed then.

phog

zulutango wrote: »

Yeah, I suppose a Meelick bypass will be needed then.

You do yourself little favours with silly comments like this

zulutango

Touché, Phog.

Glenomra

To be fair to Zultango, he has a vision of how Limerick City should be developed, with an emphasis on public transport, city centre living etc. It is not the lifestyle that I myself live, I am car dependent and living outside the city. However, I can recognise that he is probably correct in his vision of how Limerick should develop. Yesterday evening I sat in the car for a few minutes watching the commute out of the city. Roughly, 9 out out of every 10 cars, only had one occupant -as did my own.The traffic only crawled. I don't like to admit it but this car-centric economy is unsustainable in the long run. we do need to come up with alternatives.

Mc Love

As much as zulu is anti-car, he (i assume he's a he, apologies if not) also owns a car, his vision for the city is not wrong. A lot of the streets in the city are not adequate for pedestrian traffic. There's little to no cycling infrastructure in the city and when the council do try to put in infrastructure, they do it very very badly. The article below shows what the council are capable of or rather not capable of.

https://limerickcycledesign.com/2017/12/15/the-r859-should-limerick-just-give-up-on-cycling-now/

damowill

UL & Vistakon are pushing the NDR because there is are serious traffic issues in UL/NTP/Castleroy at the moment, which i can see for my own eyes everyday. I understand a lot of people from Clare work, live or go to college here and would utilise the NDR. However the Council/Govt surely understand that a well functioning public transport system along with good cycle infrastructure can alleviate traffic congestion for a fraction of the cost. If more people from Limerick took buses or cycled then the number of cars would be significantly reduced. people living in Limerick still choose to travel to work by car, even if it is a short commute. but if they had a choice of cycling or getting the bus, and could do so safely, and in ample time then we will a reduction in cars on these routes.

The city first and foremost needs investment in bus and cycling infrastructure, this means adequate bus and cycle lanes to and from the city centre so people can commute in a safe and time efficient way. More and more people will choose to live in the city which would make Bus transportation a success.

People from Clare or those commuting from outside Limerick may only have the option to commute via car, would hugely benefit from the knock on affect with reduced commute times.

zulutango

Limerick Civic Trust invited a reknowned urbanist, Professor Peter Bishop, to speak in Limerick last week. It was well attended, including two senior personnel from the Council.

Professor Bishop, when asked about how to make Limerick a great city said, "forget your ring roads, invest heavily in the city centre and look after the needs of pedestrians and cyclists first and foremost". He said that diverting traffic by building ring roads is a fallacy and used the analogy that "trying to reduce congestion by building new roads is like loosening one's belt to cure an obesity problem". We really should listen to people like Professor Bishop.

marno21

damowill wrote: »

UL & Vistakon are pushing the NDR because there is are serious traffic issues in UL/NTP/Castleroy at the moment, which i can see for my own eyes everyday. I understand a lot of people from Clare work, live or go to college here and would utilise the NDR. However the Council/Govt surely understand that a well functioning public transport system along with good cycle infrastructure can alleviate traffic congestion for a fraction of the cost. If more people from Limerick took buses or cycled then the number of cars would be significantly reduced. people living in Limerick still choose to travel to work by car, even if it is a short commute. but if they had a choice of cycling or getting the bus, and could do so safely, and in ample time then we will a reduction in cars on these routes.

The city first and foremost needs investment in bus and cycling infrastructure, this means adequate bus and cycle lanes to and from the city centre so people can commute in a safe and time efficient way. More and more people will choose to live in the city which would make Bus transportation a success.

People from Clare or those commuting from outside Limerick may only have the option to commute via car, would hugely benefit from the knock on affect with reduced commute times.

The primary issue there is people living in Clare in sufficiently low density as to make public transport prohibitively expensive to service them and being totally reliant on the car.

There would be less traffic in Castletroy if Castletroy itself wasn't so ridiculously car dependent.

damowill

marno21 wrote: »

The primary issue there is people living in Clare in sufficiently low density as to make public transport prohibitively expensive to service them and being totally reliant on the car.

There would be less traffic in Castletroy if Castletroy itself wasn't so ridiculously car dependent.

Maybe my last sentence didn't convey my message, but I dont expect people living in Clare to get the bus. They will continue to commute via car which is fine and free to do so, BUT will indirectly benefit from good Bus and Cycle Infrastructure in Limerick city. I've worked in several companies in Castletroy. A small minority will choose to walk, cycle or get the bus even though a lot of them live a short distance from work, or live in the city centre.

We build roads and people will use them. We build good roads and people will build near them, that will use the road. New roads create new traffic problems.

But likewise if we build bus and cycle lanes people will use them. Buses get a bad rep due to unreliability. But go out to UL or Castletroy and you will see buses stuck in traffic like everyone else. Separate continuous bus lanes will ensure buses run on times and provide a better service for passengers! People dont cycle primarily because it is unsafe to do so. Kids should really be cycling to school or get the bus. But parents wouldnt dream of letting them with the current infrastructure in place.

phog

damowill wrote: »

Maybe my last sentence didn't convey my message, but I dont expect people living in Clare to get the bus. They will continue to commute via car which is fine and free to do so, BUT will indirectly benefit from good Bus and Cycle Infrastructure in Limerick city. I've worked in several companies in Castletroy. A small minority will choose to walk, cycle or get the bus even though a lot of them live a short distance from work, or live in the city centre.

We build roads and people will use them. We build good roads and people will build near them, that will use the road. New roads create new traffic problems.

But likewise if we build bus and cycle lanes people will use them. Buses get a bad rep due to unreliability. But go out to UL or Castletroy and you will see buses stuck in traffic like everyone else. Separate continuous bus lanes will ensure buses run on times and provide a better service for passengers! People dont cycle primarily because it is unsafe to do so. Kids should really be cycling to school or get the bus. But parents wouldnt dream of letting them with the current infrastructure in place.

To allow the LA to build the bus corridors and some of the cycle lanes required you need to give an alternative route to those that need to drive through the city and this is one reason why the LNDR is required.

People are moaning that O'Connell Street isn't being pedestrianised while ignoring the traffic that uses it on a daily basis simply because they don't have a viable option to get around the city.

I see people saying a can of paint doesn't cost much when they propose a bus lane here or there but that's too simplistic an approach to take and imho weakens their argument and their sincerity.

73hdkgo

73hdkgo wrote: »

"Members will be aware that due to a change in scope as to how this project intersects with Junction 28 of the M7, it was necessary to carry out a further Project Appraisal Plan. This has now been completed and has been forwarded to the DTTAS for their review. We are awaiting their feedback which will inform the preliminary design work which will follow on immediately during the summer months."

"The design process will also take account of, in so far as is feasible, local concerns by locating the road as appropriately as possible within the corridor and by incorporating whatever mitigating measures are required to ensure that any adverse environmental or other impacts which may evolve are negated. A briefing of both the Killaloe and Shannon MD Councillors has
been arranged for 2pm on July 6th next."

"Limerick Northern Distributor Road (Phase 2) – The Project Steering Group met again last week with progress being made on the Appraisal documentation and Modelling Information required. Meetings/Briefings took place with TII personnel recently and a meeting with the DTTAS is now being sought for mid to late November with a view to moving the project onwards to the next stage of the approval process."

https://www.clarecoco.ie/your-council/about-the-council/chief-executive-reports/2018/chief-executives-report-november-2018-30118.pdf

LeoD

phog wrote: »

To allow the LA to build the bus corridors and some of the cycle lanes required you need to give an alternative route to those that need to drive through the city and this is one reason why the LNDR is required.

Nobody "needs" to drive through the city. Yes, driving through the heart of the city might be the most convenient and quickest route for many in cars now, especially if they don't want to pay the toll on the N18 but the LA shouldn't be designing streets and our transport network, particularly in the centre of the city, to facilitate those in cars who wish to get from one side of the city to the other over everyone else. So what if motor traffic has to take a longer, more circuitous route around the city when going from one side to the other? We need to reduce car use - what you are saying seems to be that we should continue to invest money in accommodating motor traffic and as long as the needs of motor traffic are met, there's no problem in investing in public transport and cycle traffic? Why would people use anything but a car if the LA facilitates and therefore encourages you to drive and park it anywhere you want? And getting people out of cars doesn't mean selling the car and buying a bike. It's (another failing) Government policy to increase the modal share of cycling from around 2% to 10% and reduce private motor car from 65% to 45% by 2020. That doesn't mean 10% of the population need to cycle everywhere and 45% can drive everywhere. To get 10% modal share cycling, we just need people on average to make 1 trip in every 10 by bike - some will do more, some will do less - but that's fine. This won't happen overnight but spending €millions on new roads certainly isn't the way to go about it.

source

LeoD wrote: »

Nobody "needs" to drive through the city. Yes, driving through the heart of the city might be the most convenient and quickest route for many in cars now, especially if they don't want to pay the toll on the N18 but the LA shouldn't be designing streets and our transport network, particularly in the centre of the city, to facilitate those in cars who wish to get from one side of the city to the other over everyone else. So what if motor traffic has to take a longer, more circuitous route around the city when going from one side to the other? We need to reduce car use - what you are saying seems to be that we should continue to invest money in accommodating motor traffic and as long as the needs of motor traffic are met, there's no problem in investing in public transport and cycle traffic? Why would people use anything but a car if the LA facilitates and therefore encourages you to drive and park it anywhere you want? And getting people out of cars doesn't mean selling the car and buying a bike. It's (another failing) Government policy to increase the modal share of cycling from around 2% to 10% and reduce private motor car from 65% to 45% by 2020. That doesn't mean 10% of the population need to cycle everywhere and 45% can drive everywhere. To get 10% modal share cycling, we just need people on average to make 1 trip in every 10 by bike - some will do more, some will do less - but that's fine. This won't happen overnight but spending €millions on new roads certainly isn't the way to go about it.

All fine and reasonable, but if you want cars to use a more circuitous route to travel from one side of the city to the other, and free up the city streets for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. You must first provide said circuitous route; which is what the LNDR aims to do.

Without the LNDR the displaced traffic is forced through residential areas and suburbs which already have their own traffic issues.

pigtown

source wrote: »

All fine and reasonable, but if you want cars to use a more circuitous route to travel from one side of the city to the other, and free up the city streets for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. You must first provide said circuitous route; which is what the LNDR aims to do.

Without the LNDR the displaced traffic is forced through residential areas and suburbs which already have their own traffic issues.

That's reasonable provided the new road is purely to facilitate such traffic flows and no new development is allowed along it. We know this isn't the case though, Clare county council are chomping at the bit to allow a new town near the university. All that will happen is further car dependent sprawl and in a few decades calls for an outer bypass as the LNDR will have become too congested.

LeoD

source wrote: »

All fine and reasonable, but if you want cars to use a more circuitous route to travel from one side of the city to the other, and free up the city streets for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. You must first provide said circuitous route; which is what the LNDR aims to do.

Without the LNDR the displaced traffic is forced through residential areas and suburbs which already have their own traffic issues.

The circuitous routes I am referring to will use the existing road network. Traffic should be prevented from rat running through residential areas by introducing filtered permeability. We have to reduce current motor traffic volumes, not pander it.

zulutango

http://www.southsydneyherald.com.au/does-building-more-road-reduce-traffic-congestion/#.W-1TfOj7SUk

kilburn

I am sure there are plenty of articles that can be posted here claiming the opposite.

topper75

LeoD wrote: »

The circuitous routes I am referring to will use the existing road network. Traffic should be prevented from rat running through residential areas by introducing filtered permeability. We have to reduce current motor traffic volumes, not pander it.

Do you know anything about the costs of running a car?
People aren't buying them for the craic.
Driving around on clogged roads isn't done for fun.

You make it sound like a car is lazy option that you can easily coax people away from. Reduce volumes? what does that mean.

zulutango

kilburn wrote: »

I am sure there are plenty of articles that can be posted here claiming the opposite.

I don't think you will find experts claiming the opposite.

Mc Love

topper75 wrote: »

Do you know anything about the costs of running a car?
People aren't buying them for the craic.
Driving around on clogged roads isn't done for fun.

You make it sound like a car is lazy option that you can easily coax people away from. Reduce volumes? what does that mean.

I have a car - but have recently taken up cycling and i'm a bit surprised as to why its taken me so long to swap 4 wheels for 2