Limerick Northern Distributor Road Plan

zulutango

Yes, the planning process has worked perfectly well up to now.

John_Mc

zulutango wrote: »

Yes, the planning process has worked perfectly well up to now.

So you'd rather complain about new roads rather than the actual problem itself. That's very logical.

zulutango

John_Mc wrote:

So you'd rather complain about new roads rather than the actual problem itself. That's very logical.

I've no idea what you mean. Obviously the planning process isn't fit for purpose if it permits unsustainable infrastructure.

what_traffic

John_Mc wrote: »

So you'd rather complain about new roads rather than the actual problem itself. That's very logical.

Depends what logic you are using and how you define the actual problem that you have.
From your statement I would deduce that you do not believe in the logic of "Induced Demand"?

Vanquished

John_Mc wrote: »

So you'd rather complain about new roads rather than the actual problem itself. That's very logical.

It's very obvious really. The problem is that the provision of new roads inevitably leads to knock-on adjacent low density development. It's been the most common pattern of development here for decades. There are examples in pretty much every city/town in Ireland. It's one of the primary contributors to our dysfunctional service provision model.

nim1bdeh38l2cw

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

God no. You have him totally wrong.
He'll complain about anything that's not bicycle-powered.:D

Don't forget the horse power!

MarkR

More sniping. More infractions. Forum holidays will be handed out next.

mdmix

John_Mc wrote: »

Building the road does not automatically mean to build housing around it.

There are already 600 houses planned for the Coonagh to knocknasheen road alone

marno21

mdmix wrote: »

There are already 600 houses planned for the Coonagh to knocknasheen road alone

That road is built with regeneration in mind though

Cookiemunster

mdmix wrote: »

There are already 600 houses planned for the Coonagh to knocknasheen road alone

Where? do you have a link to the planning?

geotrig

LeoD wrote: »

How many more houses will be built around O'Connors/Griffins Cross/South East Clare if they can get quick access to the M18/M7? It may provide a greater level of convenience to some of those living in these areas in the short term but inevitably, all the LNDR will do is open up huge areas for new housing development which will make providing and maintaining services such as schools, roads, water, electricity, broadband, health, etc either extremely expensive or cost prohibitive. It will be impossible to service sprawl like this with public transport so everyone will be dependent on cars to go anywhere and the cycle just goes on and on and on...

John_Mc wrote: »

You'd swear we didn't have a planning process in place to deal specifically with things like that. Building the road does not automatically mean to build housing around it.

Perhaps the focus should be on the planning process rather than the road if this is the concern

zulutango wrote: »

Yes, the planning process has worked perfectly well up to now.

The thing is its not short term thinking if you ask me ,any road is thinking long term more than the AN taisce's short term high five thinking ,limerick is a very small city and this road should have been built years ago or at least when moyross and the likes where been developed, if not then at least 20 years ago now.
This crap of urban sprawl is nonsense for the most part, its probably about 3-4 km from town to "oconnors cross" .
I've stated and i'd guess most people would agree with seeing a balanced approach for developement with some high rise :rolleyes: (4 stories isnt high rise) coupled with planned city expansion, guess what people like living in houses !!! shock ..... no city in the world can grow and not have both, london L.A and the likes that were being thrown about are not comparable to limerick and any US city for that matter really.

The issue with services is null, if we build in the city or out we still need to provide all of these , the lack of investment and bad planning application during the boom made this a problem when none of these services were built or added too for the most part.
Limerick is small and the development plots and blocks that have been identified are small and can only take so much building we dont want a concrete jungle. Take a look at connell street . the only planted tree is outside ulsterbank ,things like this make a difference.
If we cant in our small city service areas that are next to or expanding on current regions we have some serious questions to ask on how these services are run.
we need to take heavy traffic out of the city, if we want to make a more cycle /walk ,family and bus friendly city.
we need to fix the imbalances in development in the city especially the north side
we will not attract big business if we dont invest in infastructure. I think the long term far out weighs the short term in all these.

LeoD

geotrig wrote: »

This crap of urban sprawl is nonsense for the most part, its probably about 3-4 km from town to "oconnors cross" .

It's 13km to the city centre.

zulutango

Geotrig, we should expand, but not in a low density, car dependent fashion because that is highly inefficient and will only get us so far. In the long run it will impede our prospects, as well as being totally against national and EU policies and efforts to curb emissions. It's the very epitome of bad planning, and progressive cities are not prioritising or pursuing this kind of car centric infrastructure. Indeed, the smarter cities are removing infrastructure like this. The idea that we need to divert traffic to make better cities is flawed. We need to reduce traffic, and reduce it drastically. You don't reduce traffic by building infrastructure for traffic.

https://gizmodo.com/6-freeway-removals-that-changed-their-cities-forever-1548314937

https://www.businessinsider.com/highway-closing-city-transformation-2018-5?r=US&IR=T

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/13/seoul-south-korea-expressway-demolished

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/01/30/10-urban-freeways-that-need-to-come-down/

https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/40928

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/end-of-the-roads-when-highway-removal-works

geotrig

LeoD wrote: »

It's 13km to the city centre.

zulutango wrote: »

Geotrig, we should expand, but not in a low density, car dependent fashion because that is highly inefficient and will only get us so far. In the long run it will impede our prospects, as well as being totally against national and EU policies and efforts to curb emissions. It's the very epitome of bad planning, and progressive cities are not prioritising or pursuing this kind of car centric infrastructure. Indeed, the smarter cities are removing infrastructure like this. The idea that we need to divert traffic to make better cities is flawed. We need to reduce traffic, and reduce it drastically. You don't reduce traffic by building infrastructure for traffic.

https://gizmodo.com/6-freeway-removals-that-changed-their-cities-forever-1548314937

https://www.businessinsider.com/highway-closing-city-transformation-2018-5?r=US&IR=T

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/13/seoul-south-korea-expressway-demolished

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/01/30/10-urban-freeways-that-need-to-come-down/

https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/40928

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/end-of-the-roads-when-highway-removal-works

4.8km dont know where you are getting 13km lol O_o!


Again Zulutango you are comparing huge US cities freeways and a freeway in Seoul to limerick !:rolleyes:
This isnt about being a car centric city , its about lack of infastructure look at those pictures, they removed a freeway, they still have a large road network Emissions is a red herring and is a short term view of the situation ,we could move to ev /hydrogen fuel and this is gone etc ...
In not saying we need to divert traffic for a better city , i 'd gladly drive through the city every day for the rest of my life and not worry about it and probably will even when this road is built .I'm saying we need the infastructure ,one route out of certain areas is wrong and the epitone of bad planning ,as you say, lack of a decent bus service to new areas,when 4-5 k people have been added to a region and the bus routes dont change, is also bad planning lack of cycle ways is bad planning ,these things are now being improved but we have a long way to go.

geotrig

Also the only comparison I could make with those US cities to Limerick would be pedestrianising of o'connell street. either way im out of this crapola

OfTheMarsWongs

I sometimes click on this thread thinking I’ve accidentally clicked mid way through and am reading posts from months ago.

On a related note, I was in Tesco Coonagh last night. That first section of road looks great. 2 way cycles paths etc.

zulutango

geotrig wrote: »

Emissions is a red herring and is a short term view of the situation ,we could move to ev /hydrogen fuel and this is gone etc ...

Electric vehicles need a lot of energy too, you know! And producing hydrogen consumes vast amounts of energy. It certainly isn't a red herring. These are not good solutions to the challenges we face. One way or another we have to reduce the need for using large amounts of energy and building new roads is doing the very opposite.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

Electric vehicles need a lot of energy too, you know! And producing hydrogen consumes vast amounts of energy. It certainly isn't a red herring. These are not good solutions to the challenges we face. One way or another we have to reduce the need for using large amounts of energy and building new roads is doing the very opposite.

Solar, wind, wave and even nuclear. Plenty of zero emmission power generating sources coming online along with zero emission vehicles.

nim1bdeh38l2cw

Let's build a single 164 story building down on the dock road, and move everyone in there. The rest of the city can then be bulldozed, so there will be no need for any distributor roads, motorways, public transport or even cars. zulutango probably still wouldn't be happy though.

mdmix

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Where? do you have a link to the planning?

No planning permission, it came up at a zoning meeting last year. City planners ( ie. the road engineers) advised that there is land already zoned for 1200 houses in Coonagh and that they recommend zoning lands along the NDR phase 1 for an extra 600 houses.

I can’t find the link, it was reported in the leader early last year and the council had a document on their website which made recomendations on zoning lands in and around the city.

Cookiemunster

mdmix wrote: »

No planning permission, it came up at a zoning meeting last year. City planners ( ie. the road engineers) advised that there is land already zoned for 1200 houses in Coonagh and that they recommend zoning lands along the NDR phase 1 for an extra 600 houses.

I can’t find the link, it was reported in the leader early last year and the council had a document on their website which made recomendations on zoning lands in and around the city.

So what you're saying so is that there aren't actually 600 houses already planned for the the Coonagh to Knockalisheen Road like you claimed.

geotrig

Milan Elegant Cigar wrote: »

Let's build a single 164

Nice, we will just be above the Burj Khalifa ...tourism sorted ...as long as they come by boat.:pac:

zulutango

You're being pedantic. If it's zoned for a large increase in housing on the basis of the development of the LNDR, then his/her point is valid.

nim1bdeh38l2cw

geotrig wrote: »

Nice, we will just be above the Burj Khalifa ...tourism sorted ...as long as they come by boat.:pac:

Exactly. We can run a hovercraft over from Shannon.

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

You're being pedantic. If it's zoned for a large increase in housing on the basis of the development of the LNDR, then his/her point is valid.

I assume that's aimed at me. It's not zoned. There's a recommendation for it to be zoned, but it's not. Therefore there isn't already planning for 600 houses as was stated.

geotrig

zulutango wrote: »

You're being pedantic. If it's zoned for a large increase in housing on the basis of the development of the LNDR, then his/her point is valid.

again people want to buy houses !!! not everyone can or wants to live in a city centre mid/high rise ..and this housing developments is located next to others so with or without the road it will probably go ahead anyway.

Just to note I personally would gladly live in a decent apartment in the city,but i know a lot who don't want that.

Reputable Rog

OfTheMarsWongs wrote: »

I sometimes click on this thread thinking I’ve accidentally clicked mid way through and am reading posts from months ago.

On a related note, I was in Tesco Coonagh last night. That first section of road looks great. 2 way cycles paths etc.

Shhh Zulu won't like to hear that.

kilburn

geotrig wrote: »

again people want to buy houses !!! not everyone can or wants to live in a city centre mid/high rise ..and this housing developments is located next to others so with or without the road it will probably go ahead anyway.

Just to note I personally would gladly live in a decent apartment in the city,but i know a lot who don't want that.

On this point i had to stay in an apartment in the city center for a number of months will work was done on my house and they are really unsuitable for families with small children.

mdmix

Cookiemunster wrote: »

So what you're saying so is that there aren't actually 600 houses already planned for the the Coonagh to Knockalisheen Road like you claimed.

If your definition of something being planned is that it has attained planning permission then no, there are no houses planned. By the same definition there are no plans for the opera center either, or a phase 2 for the NDR.

mdmix

Milan Elegant Cigar wrote: »

Let's build a single 164 story building down on the dock road, and move everyone in there. The rest of the city can then be bulldozed, so there will be no need for any distributor roads, motorways, public transport or even cars. zulutango probably still wouldn't be happy though.

About as rediculous as spending 200 million on a road that is not needed.