Limerick Northern Distributor Road Plan

zulutango

geotrig wrote: »

the 2nd picture is corbally road and rarely has cars parked on it ,its too narrow the few that do park on the paths also !

I'd have gone running out that way quite a bit in the past, but not so much in recent years. My memory is that there is often cars parked on the left (outbound). But maybe they are just thrown up on the path?

What about on the other side? There's trees there but seems to be space for both a footpath and a cycle track.

zulutango

There isn't any particularly challenging obstacle to putting an extensive cycle network in this area, and that would likely have a very significant positive impact on the traffic.

carbonceiling

zulutango wrote: »

I did a quick screen grab showing a potential safe cycling route from Westbury to the city centre, which might be worth considering.

I like this idea, also you could link up with the existing bike lane and create a link to Lanahrone avenue, add a bike lane there and you would have a safe bike lane almost the entire way to Scoil Ide from Westbury.

geotrig

zulutango wrote: »

I'd have gone running out that way quite a bit in the past, but not so much in recent years. My memory is that there is often cars parked on the left (outbound). But maybe they are just thrown up on the path?

What about on the other side? There's trees there but seems to be space for both a footpath and a cycle track.

yes there can be a few cars parked on path/road and to get around them you normally are just breaking the centre road line( i think) which isn't great for anyone , the other side has some scope alright and could continue for the most part to by scoile ide but bottleneck areas on the road in general are a major hazard.

zulutango

geotrig wrote: »

yes there can be a few cars parked on path/road and to get around them you normally are just breaking the centre road line( i think) which isn't great for anyone , the other side has some scope alright and could continue for the most part to by scoile ide but bottleneck areas on the road in general are a major hazard.

The Council needs to get serious about its responsibilities and tackle this properly.

Mc Love

zulutango wrote: »

It's logical though. If the people who are currently driving switch to bikes and busses, it makes no sense to build new roads for the fewer numbers who continue to drive.

Exactly agree 100% Traffic numbers would reduce if we had QBC's and adequate cycle infrastructure.

Milan Elegant Cigar wrote: »

You're a complete lunatic, do you actually believe this nonsense, or are you a troll?

I believe it too Haddock, its proven around the world. People are more healthy too as a result of cycling more provided there's safe cycling routes available.

mdmix

Rough maths so.

The NDR cost 150 million and will provide road capacity for 15k -20k cars. There are roughly 3.5k that commute by car from the areas of Shannon banks, and south Clare that cant use alternate roads.

150 million seems like a bad deal for such a small number, especially when you consider central government will also have to cover the loss of revinue from those that would have alternativly used the toll. Considering the induced demand (those that don’t need it but will use anyway) and the future developments on this road, capacity could be used up within a few years.

There are 44k commuters (workers only) in total in limerick city, over 60% use a private car. If bus corridors were available between caherdavin/Raheen/castletroy this could bring journey time down to under 15 minutes regardless of time of day. Additionally it would promote development along these corridors, which would make it far easier to upgrade the service in the future. These upgrades would likely cost less than the NDR and would be available to 10s of thousands. If even just 15% of drivers started to use it then it would remove nearly 4K cars from the roads, more than the 3.5k who will potentially use the NDR instead of the city roads. Additionally, virtually no local funds would be required for upkeep as opposed to the NDR which would need to be maintained by local funds. The bus corridors would be close to cost neutral after the initial investment. The NDR will not be.

focusing public investment in the city will mean private investment will follow, as opposed to opening up cheap land outside the city. When spending public money we should be focused on where to get the best value for money and reach the most people, the NDR does not represent value for money and is only needed by a small number of people. Public money should be a strategic investment to promote future private investment, even some of those calling for the road have suggested barring private investment along it as they see the potential damage to the city, so why build it at all?

I’m sure those in Shannon banks might feel hard done by if the NDR isn’t built, and I have sympathy for them, but the road is not needed. If anyone thinks we should build the NDR anyway because they feel they (and their neighbors) personally need it, then why stop there, why not build the monorail, the hot air balloon launchpad and the ballyneety expressway? You might not need any of these but someone else migh so I suppose we should build it all.

Mc Love

Good post mdmix

I've just read this blog and the analogy the author pens is a good one, give it a read and let me know what you think if you think we should have another ring road.

https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/traffic-is-not-the-lifeblood-of-a-city/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

John_Mc

mdmix wrote: »

Rough maths so.

The NDR cost 150 million and will provide road capacity for 15k -20k cars. There are roughly 3.5k that commute by car from the areas of Shannon banks, and south Clare that cant use alternate roads.

150 million seems like a bad deal for such a small number, especially when you consider central government will also have to cover the loss of revinue from those that would have alternativly used the toll. Considering the induced demand (those that don’t need it but will use anyway) and the future developments on this road, capacity could be used up within a few years.

There are 44k commuters (workers only) in total in limerick city, over 60% use a private car. If bus corridors were available between caherdavin/Raheen/castletroy this could bring journey time down to under 15 minutes regardless of time of day. Additionally it would promote development along these corridors, which would make it far easier to upgrade the service in the future. These upgrades would likely cost less than the NDR and would be available to 10s of thousands. If even just 15% of drivers started to use it then it would remove nearly 4K cars from the roads, more than the 3.5k who will potentially use the NDR instead of the city roads. Additionally, virtually no local funds would be required for upkeep as opposed to the NDR which would need to be maintained by local funds. The bus corridors would be close to cost neutral after the initial investment. The NDR will not be.

focusing public investment in the city will mean private investment will follow, as opposed to opening up cheap land outside the city. When spending public money we should be focused on where to get the best value for money and reach the most people, the NDR does not represent value for money and is only needed by a small number of people. Public money should be a strategic investment to promote future private investment, even some of those calling for the road have suggested barring private investment along it as they see the potential damage to the city, so why build it at all?

I’m sure those in Shannon banks might feel hard done by if the NDR isn’t built, and I have sympathy for them, but the road is not needed. If anyone thinks we should build the NDR anyway because they feel they (and their neighbors) personally need it, then why stop there, why not build the monorail, the hot air balloon launchpad and the ballyneety expressway? You might not need any of these but someone else migh so I suppose we should build it all.

Where are you getting those figures from?

How are you excluding road users who can use alternative roads? Just because they can go through town to get to the other side doesn't make it a good alternative and is essentially driving traffic through other areas.

As most reasonable people on here are saying, the investment should be spread across multiple initiatives.

Summerrose75

Mc Love wrote: »

Good post mdmix

I've just read this blog and the analogy the author pens is a good one, give it a read and let me know what you think if you think we should have another ring road.

https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/traffic-is-not-the-lifeblood-of-a-city/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Very good,so true !

zulutango

John_Mc wrote: »

As most reasonable people on here are saying, the investment should be spread across multiple initiatives.

Can you flesh that out a bit? You're supportive of the LNDR, which costs at least €150 million. What kind of investment should go into bus and bike infrastructure?

phog

mdmix wrote: »

Rough maths so.

The NDR cost 150 million and will provide road capacity for 15k -20k cars. There are roughly 3.5k that commute by car from the areas of Shannon banks, and south Clare that cant use alternate roads.

150 million seems like a bad deal for such a small number, especially when you consider central government will also have to cover the loss of revinue from those that would have alternativly used the toll. Considering the induced demand (those that don’t need it but will use anyway) and the future developments on this road, capacity could be used up within a few years.

There are 44k commuters (workers only) in total in limerick city, over 60% use a private car. If bus corridors were available between caherdavin/Raheen/castletroy this could bring journey time down to under 15 minutes regardless of time of day. Additionally it would promote development along these corridors, which would make it far easier to upgrade the service in the future. These upgrades would likely cost less than the NDR and would be available to 10s of thousands. If even just 15% of drivers started to use it then it would remove nearly 4K cars from the roads, more than the 3.5k who will potentially use the NDR instead of the city roads. Additionally, virtually no local funds would be required for upkeep as opposed to the NDR which would need to be maintained by local funds. The bus corridors would be close to cost neutral after the initial investment. The NDR will not be.

focusing public investment in the city will mean private investment will follow, as opposed to opening up cheap land outside the city. When spending public money we should be focused on where to get the best value for money and reach the most people, the NDR does not represent value for money and is only needed by a small number of people. Public money should be a strategic investment to promote future private investment, even some of those calling for the road have suggested barring private investment along it as they see the potential damage to the city, so why build it at all?

I’m sure those in Shannon banks might feel hard done by if the NDR isn’t built, and I have sympathy for them, but the road is not needed. If anyone thinks we should build the NDR anyway because they feel they (and their neighbors) personally need it, then why stop there, why not build the monorail, the hot air balloon launchpad and the ballyneety expressway? You might not need any of these but someone else migh so I suppose we should build it all.

I actually think the ring road will encourage more use of the tunnel. The hassle of getting to the the tunnel is off putting.

Also, when you consider the infrastructure will be there for hundred of years then it really isn't a huge some of money.

Summerrose75

phog wrote: »

I actually think the ring road will encourage more use of the tunnel. The hassle of getting to the the tunnel is off putting.

Also, when you consider the infrastructure will be there for hundred of years then it really isn't a huge some of money.

A piece of infrastructure that will in no doubt be totally obsolete in less than 20 years time,no longer fit for purpose

Cookiemunster

Summerrose75 wrote: »

A piece of infrastructure that will in no doubt be totally obsolete in less than 20 years time,no longer fit for purpose

Why? Unless someone suddenly invents flying cars.

Summerrose75

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Why? Unless someone suddenly invents flying cars.

Well currently in Annacotty,230 houses are near completion, another 200+ in the planning permission process next to Castletroy college, another 200+ in the pipe line just across from vistakon, there are 8 notices for planning permission in the technilogical park,so it's very obvious the city is moving very rapidly into the county

geotrig

mdmix wrote: »

Rough maths so.

The NDR cost 150 million and will provide road capacity for 15k -20k cars. There are roughly 3.5k that commute by car from the areas of Shannon banks, and south Clare that cant use alternate roads.

150 million seems like a bad deal for such a small number, especially when you consider central government will also have to cover the loss of revinue from those that would have alternativly used the toll. Considering the induced demand (those that don’t need it but will use anyway) and the future developments on this road, capacity could be used up within a few years.

There are 44k commuters (workers only) in total in limerick city, over 60% use a private car. If bus corridors were available between caherdavin/Raheen/castletroy this could bring journey time down to under 15 minutes regardless of time of day. Additionally it would promote development along these corridors, which would make it far easier to upgrade the service in the future. These upgrades would likely cost less than the NDR and would be available to 10s of thousands. If even just 15% of drivers started to use it then it would remove nearly 4K cars from the roads, more than the 3.5k who will potentially use the NDR instead of the city roads. Additionally, virtually no local funds would be required for upkeep as opposed to the NDR which would need to be maintained by local funds. The bus corridors would be close to cost neutral after the initial investment. The NDR will not be.

focusing public investment in the city will mean private investment will follow, as opposed to opening up cheap land outside the city. When spending public money we should be focused on where to get the best value for money and reach the most people, the NDR does not represent value for money and is only needed by a small number of people. Public money should be a strategic investment to promote future private investment, even some of those calling for the road have suggested barring private investment along it as they see the potential damage to the city, so why build it at all?

I’m sure those in Shannon banks might feel hard done by if the NDR isn’t built, and I have sympathy for them, but the road is not needed. If anyone thinks we should build the NDR anyway because they feel they (and their neighbors) personally need it, then why stop there, why not build the monorail, the hot air balloon launchpad and the ballyneety expressway? You might not need any of these but someone else migh so I suppose we should build it all.

Were have you got those number from ?
Firstly this road is for far more than just “Shannon banks” and “south Clare” ! It was highlighted as an link road for Moyross to coonagh roundabout , this section is going ahead as we speak !no.
The house’s that were mentioned as being “planned” are for all around this section are they not ?. Now if the rest of the road goes ahead and links Corbally, Parteen, Arndnacrusha Broadford blackwater , Clonlara and could also benefit o briens bridge and Killaloe, it also opens the tunnel to these areas no ifs or butts ,it does , although the turnoff should have been at coonagh instead of clonmacken if you ask me ! if the road links to Mackey roundabout or the Dublin road either the bridge or road should be tolled no if or buts on this , so it could pay for itself !

Your points above are as you saw “ROUGH MATH”s taking a lot of assumptions. You cannot assume only 3.5k will just use the road you seem to be focusing on just one area or aspect of it , what about the commuters coming from Shannon, sixmilebridge ,Ennis etc or did you forget about these with the selective maths ! . In one had you also say only 3.5k will use it and on the other capacity will be reached so which one is it ? the N18 / M20 is there how long now ? The huge influx of Development that is been suggested as going to happen on this road hasn’t happened on there and its nowhere near capacity either ! yes there has been development but we are a city ,development will happen it just need to be balanced

Not one person arguing that this road is wanted or needed has been one dimensional in our argument , we have all stated that the city should be developed for high rise housing , bus corridors and proper cycleways with a proper reliable bus service .
I’ve not seen one person cycle the new Coonagh roundabout cycle ways yet ,does that make it a waste of money ,hell no.
The north side of the city has been underdeveloped for years ,more so than any other section probably because of this “fear “ Clare co.co. will swoop in with their own development to compromise it . I think some development is needed , a light /small industrial estate close to the new lit hub in coonagh cross to take advantage of the neighbouring Institute of technology and it would also have a positive affect on neighbouring housing with access to work and relations , not all jobs can be office jobs !

What we are saying is development in the city has nothing to do with this road and should go ahead regardless ,Development of bus corridors and cycle ways should happen , Highrise/mid housing building should happen (again not everyone or many want to live in apartments this is fact, some young yes but they also want to settle in houses when the time comes for families)
If the city wants to grow to 200k-300k as zulutango suggests ,upwards and outward development will happen and can happen ,it’s how we plan and implement it is the priority. The urban centres that are so hotly contested, although implemented badly at the time to the detriment of the city were needed. The city spaces outside of one to two larger plots are all small due our grid system and sensitive Georgian areas.

zulutango

Here's an illustration outlining one of the main reasons for calls for the Northern Distributor Road. It seems to me that the problem (i.e. the 'need') has been caused by ill-advised housing developments in SE Clare, on the edge of Limerick City. These are leading to traffic volumes that the existing roads cannot handle. I think most people will agree with this.

The question really is what the solution should be. The difficulty with the proposed solution is that it will make lands in SE Clare more attractive for development, and it is inconceivable that Clare County Council won't promote this given their track record and the fact that they have stated this as being one of the reasons for the LNDR. It's urban sprawl, plain and simple. We know that urban sprawl is incredibly costly (far over and above the capital cost and ongoing maintenance costs of the road itself). So, it makes absolutely no sense to pursue this solution. It's a lazy man's answer to a problem that other lazy men created in the first place.

geotrig

When were they ill advised, back before we where born ? . Its 2km or less straight line to the city, if anything Clare co.co have been conservative in their planning till now . I really don't see how you fit all you envisage into the utopia of the limerick with all the conflicts going on , does the fact that this land is in Clare muddy the waters ,it shouldn’t and again this isn’t all just about corbally.
History has shown that high rise can be as bad as urban sprawl. Services and amenities will need to be provided no matter what we do, urban sprawl has some additional costs yes but if managed and built correctly with well thought out plans as well as developing the city it could work.
Not everyone wants to live in the city people like country side and villages and urban estates. we can build all the bus corridors and cycleways we want, it doesn't mean people will use them , the main drawback of been a developed country.

Glenomra

It is obvious that to anybody following the history of this planned road that it probably will never be built. The obstacles are insurmountable imo, while the benefits are so modest, considering the eventual cost will be well over 240 million euro. a few of the problems; linking the road to the Mackey roundabout will mean fewer people using the tunnel with resultant loss to the State which has to pay for the shortfall; objections by the ESB to building across the head-race of the canal, means it must run through part of Parteen Village with resultant outcry - from some locals, not to mention objections from Lisnagry residents; the DAFT idea to build the proposed Shannon crossing on the Springfield floodplain despite increasing emphasis on Global Warming, increased threats of flooding of Irish Cities, including Limerick. This is arguably the greatest impediment to the proposed bridge. What planner will give permission to build here and if they do, will the courts and the EU allow it? Re estimated cost. This road will entail the construction of a bridge over the tail-race, a bridge over the blackwater-canal at Gillogue, the largest river crossing in Ireland at Srawickeen-Lisnagry, and two bridges over the Mulcair. Do posters genuinely believe that the cost of this road can be justified. Even people including politicians who strongly supported this road initially are speaking of the proposal now as 'pie in the sky'.

Mc Love

Glenomra wrote: »

the largest river crossing in Ireland at Srawickeen-Lisnagry,

I think they are aiming at connecting to the roundabout in plassey too, which to be honest might be a better option? As well as having a connect to the Annacotty junction. I think it might cost a bit more than 240 million tbh

kilburn

I think everyone in favour should chip in together and buy some land out there, when the road is built we can get it rezoned and sell to a developer or build ourselves 😂😂😂😂

Mc Love

kilburn wrote: »

I think everyone in favour should chip in together and buy some land out there, when the road is built we can get it rezoned and sell to a developer or build ourselves ��������

Or charge the government more than what its worth to build through it

phog

mdmix wrote: »

I dont think you are thinking of other perspectives here at all. The ESRI are the latest to highlight that there are enough houses being built nationally already. The housing crisis is due to a lack of apartments. Young people 20-30 year olds prefer living in the city center. The lack of suitable apartments may explain why so many of this age bracket ( including the majority of 3rd level draduates) leave limerick for Dublin or abroad. Building the NDR will only lead to low density housing and shopping developments along it and will increase traffic. At the same time development of residential of the city will continue to stagnate

We have lost that age profile mainly because of the lack of jobs, people that move to Dublin are following work and living is very similar accommodation to what is available in Limerick but paying more for it.

People that move abroad are moving for reason like they want a new experience, well paid jobs, pay less tax or warmer climate.

I've two children in that age bracket, they and none of their friends moved from Limerick because they couldn't get a suitable apartment in Limerick.

zulutango

Here's some recent evidence of induced demand in an Irish context. 15 years after it was built the traffic volumes have increased to the point that more road capacity is needed.

kilburn

zulutango wrote: »

Here's some recent evidence of induced demand in an Irish context. 15 years after it was built the traffic volumes have increased to the point that more road capacity is needed.

Dont think that is a fair comparison to be honest that is an issue with off ramps, same issue was resolved going in to Shannon recently fairly successfully

zulutango

But at the heart of the issue is increased traffic volumes. The ramps would have been fine when the road was opened.

kilburn

zulutango wrote: »

But at the heart of the issue is increased traffic volumes. The ramps would have been fine when the road was opened.

It doesn't say anywhere in that story traffic volumes have increased, on some of the roads recently built the slip roads and merging into other lanes have been inadequate and poorly designed for the traffic volume.

geotrig

kilburn wrote: »

Dont think that is a fair comparison to be honest that is an issue with off ramps, same issue was resolved going in to Shannon recently fairly successfully

Why this wasn't done years ago beggers belief and shows how bad some of these junctions where planned in the beginning ,the difference is like night and day now.

interestingly i saw an article where luxembourg are introducing free public transport or thinking of it to reduce congestion , the same article also gave the example of some eastern block country ,the name escapes me , did the same to no effect a couple years ago.

geotrig

"But a 2016 analysis of the Tallinn scheme found it didn’t really encourage many people to stop driving.

In 2014, a year into the experiment, the use of public transport had increased by 14%. However, car use only declined by 5%.

In fact, it was walkers who hopped on buses, as the number of trips made on foot dropped by a staggering 40%."

just quoting what i saw somewhere

zulutango

Can you provide the link to that? A 5% decrease is quite significant, but we don't know how efficient the service in Talinn is. Why would people use it if it took a very long time to get fro A to B, even if it's free?