Limerick Northern Distributor Road Plan

marno21

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/247532/an-taisce-limerick-object-to-150m-orbital-route.html

An Taisce have formally objected to the plan.

johnnyryan89

marno21 wrote: »

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/247532/an-taisce-limerick-object-to-150m-orbital-route.html

An Taisce have formally objected to the plan.

Hopefully they come back to this and change it up a little hopefully getting some of it built. One of the links at the top of the page had different coloured routes with one of them going from Rhebogue to Larkins Cross which would be greatly needed to helping traffic on the Corbally Road.

mitresize5

An Taisce objecting, well who would have thought

topper75

Would you also be shocked if I told you that they have not submitted an alternative proposal alongside their objection.

An Taisce - I'll never vote for them again...

... wait a sec!

mitresize5

If you read this report in the leader you will see this gem

An Taisce Limerick says, “We have plenty of examples in Limerick already. Peak time congestion on the Dock Road and Condell Road has not been significantly alleviated by the construction of the Limerick Tunnel.

Obviously that clown never had to endure the car park that was the Dock Rd all through the 00's. To say there hasn't been a huge improvement in journey times along the Dock Rd is just plain bull.

Cookiemunster

mitresize5 wrote: »

If you read this report in the leader you will see this gem

An Taisce Limerick says, “We have plenty of examples in Limerick already. Peak time congestion on the Dock Road and Condell Road has not been significantly alleviated by the construction of the Limerick Tunnel.

Obviously that clown never had to endure the car park that was the Dock Rd all through the 00's. To say there hasn't been a huge improvement in journey times along the Dock Rd is just plain bull.

Definitely never on the Condell Rd either. Before the tunnel it was a car park inbound at the morning and evening rush hours. As was the Ennis Rd. There may not be enough cars using the tunnel, but it still takes thousands of cars out of the city every day.

OfTheMarsWongs

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Definitely never on the Condell Rd either. Before the tunnel it was a car park inbound at the morning and evening rush hours. As was the Ennis Rd. There may not be enough cars using the tunnel, but it still takes thousands of cars out of the city every day.

I think I've mentioned it on this thread before but pre-tunnel, Brookville Avenue was bumper to bumper in afternoon/evening peak time. Now you're rarely a car or two behind anything at LIT roundabout.

Berty

Oh I remember all the rat runs alright coming back from work in Shannon. Horrible it was. Traffic was crazy. The roads are quieter now but I believe the distributor road is needed.

Mithchelstown has both a motorway and a distributor road which, for the size of the place, both still had impact.

zulutango

A question for those in favour of the LNDR. Has it always been needed, or if not, what changed such that it has become necessary to build it?

mart 23

We are now in the year 2017 and requirements are different now from 10 or 20 years ago. An Taisce are solely set up to object . This would be 3 plans they presently have objections to in Limerick.

I note in the article in the LL the use of the phrase Induced demand . That is also a favourite phrase used by poster Zalutango .

phog

zulutango wrote: »

A question for those in favour of the LNDR. Has it always been needed, or if not, what changed such that it has become necessary to build it?

Read Post #209

marno21

zulutango wrote: »

A question for those in favour of the LNDR. Has it always been needed, or if not, what changed such that it has become necessary to build it?

Major expansion of the University, shortage of accommodation in Castletroy leading to a need to commute, expansion of companies in the National Technology Park along with the lack of connectivity in the northern/north eastern part of the city, especially the lack of a Shannon crossing (UL aside)

As I said before, the value got from this road is entirely dependent on one thing, the connection to the M7. If it's simply tacked onto the roundabout at Finnegans or tacked on to the Dublin Road with traffic lights it will be a colossal waste of money.

pigtown

mart 23 wrote: »

We are now in the year 2017 and requirements are different now from 10 or 20 years ago. An Taisce are solely set up to object . This would be 3 plans they presently have objections to in Limerick.

I note in the article in the LL the use of the phrase Induced demand . That is also a favourite phrase used by poster Zalutango .

Induced Demand is a common phrase used in the planning industry. It's a well known thing.

testicles

This post has been deleted.

Vanquished

testicles wrote: »

So zulutango is either a Planner or a member an objecter of An Taisce?

Or just someone with a knowledge of or interest in transport and planning matters.

topper75

Does 'induced' demand suggest that they will only come if you build it?

I reckon they are coming anyway.

That is not the question (bar a supervirus or nuclear winter!).

The question is: Are we going to wait for a serious traffic crisis and only then take action, or do we look at increasing capacity now so our city does not choke to death?

zulutango

Another thing to think about is the revolutionary effect on transport that autonomous vehicles are going to have in the next decade or so. It's widely thought that they will lead to a collapse in the number of cars on our roads. We may be throwing 140 million euro at a road that simply isn't needed. As taxpayers we should be up in arms about this kind of profligacy.

pigtown

topper75 wrote: »

Does 'induced' demand suggest that they will only come if you build it?

I reckon they are coming anyway.

That is not the question (bar a supervirus or nuclear winter!).

The question is: Are we going to wait for a serious traffic crisis and only then take action, or do we look at increasing capacity now so our city does not choke to death?

More roads = more traffic is an established phenomenon. We need to remember that this road will be around for generations so in my opinion the question is what way do we see our city growing in he future?

Do we continue with our car-based urban sprawl strategy, in the full knowledge of all this entails; long commutes, low density, no effective public transport, low rates of walking and cycling?

Or do we try to change our approach and attempt to encourage higher density closer to the city centre, which involves a different lifestyle, smaller houses, more efficient provision of services, fewer private cars?

I'd prefer the latter, but perhaps I'm in the minority. Maybe I mix with a different crowd but most people tend to want shorter commutes and better services. Are we willing as a culture to change how we live in order to make these things possible?

Cookiemunster

zulutango wrote: »

Another thing to think about is the revolutionary effect on transport that autonomous vehicles are going to have in the next decade or so. It's widely thought that they will lead to a collapse in the number of cars on our roads. We may be throwing 140 million euro at a road that simply isn't needed. As taxpayers we should be up in arms about this kind of profligacy.

I think you're getting well ahead of yourself when it come to autonomous cars. The technology is still years away from being reliable and few manufacturers other than Tesla are seriously testing it.

Who exactly is widely thinking that it will lead to a collapse of the number of cars? Definitely not the manufacturers. Even Tesla wouldn't be doing it if they didn't think it could help them sell more units.

Plus there's the fact that people actually like driving.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

I think you're getting well ahead of yourself when it come to autonomous cars. The technology is still years away from being reliable and few manufacturers other than Tesla are seriously testing it.

Who exactly is widely thinking that it will lead to a collapse of the number of cars? Definitely not the manufacturers. Even Tesla wouldn't be doing it if they didn't think it could help them sell more units.

Plus there's the fact that people actually like driving.

I don't think I am from what I've been reading. The technology is very nearly there. There's loads of pilot schemes already happening throughout Europe and North America.

We're looking at autonomous vehicles being commonplace within a decade. Here's just one article from a quick google search - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/features/how-long-until-we-have-fully-driverless-cars/

The collapse will come about because we'll be ordering cars on our smart phones to pick us up and bring us to our destination. Then that car will go and pick someone else up. At the moment cars spend something like 98% of their lifetime parked up. In the near future they'll be used a lot more because autonomous driving technology enables that. There just won't be a need for a fraction of the current volume of cars. Uber and Lyft already have pilot schemes are already up and running in the US.

https://www.wired.com/2015/03/the-economic-impact-of-autonomous-vehicles/

When faced with the option of driving a car or letting the car drive itself and spending one's time doing something more productive, the vast majority of people will choose the latter.

keane2097

Cookiemunster wrote: »

I think you're getting well ahead of yourself when it come to autonomous cars. The technology is still years away from being reliable and few manufacturers other than Tesla are seriously testing it.

Who exactly is widely thinking that it will lead to a collapse of the number of cars? Definitely not the manufacturers. Even Tesla wouldn't be doing it if they didn't think it could help them sell more units.

Plus there's the fact that people actually like driving.

The bit in bold is wildly inaccurate, just for the record.

mart 23

I would imagine that Autonomous cars would lead to extra cars on the road because of their non driving requirement and in turn lead to the requirement of extra and better roads of which the LNDR would be one .

marno21

Whilst increasing density closer to the city centre is required, the National Technology Park and UL are already built and won't be moving. By all means stop the development of traffic around Castletroy/Plassey etc, but that's not going to deal with the existing traffic.

And cars may spend 98% of their time parked up, but it's when they're not parked up and moving at 2mph on the Dublin Road is the issue here.

zulutango

marno21 wrote: »

Whilst increasing density closer to the city centre is required, the National Technology Park and UL are already built and won't be moving. By all means stop the development of traffic around Castletroy/Plassey etc, but that's not going to deal with the existing traffic.

One of the Council's stated reasons to build the road is to open up development land north of the city. This is utter madness. They are effectively planning to develop a lower density, more car dependent, more inefficient city. All the research and evidence says that you shouldn't do this. It's remarkably backward from a transport and spatial planning point of view. Pure 1950's stuff.

marno21 wrote: »

And cars may spend 98% of their time parked up, but it's when they're not parked up and moving at 2mph on the Dublin Road is the issue here.

Nice non-sequitir there.

zulutango

mart 23 wrote: »

I would imagine that Autonomous cars would lead to extra cars on the road because of their non driving requirement and in turn lead to the requirement of extra and better roads of which the LNDR would be one .

Can you explain why you think they will lead to extra cars on the road?

Insect Overlord

zulutango wrote: »

Nice non-sequitir there.

That wasn't a non sequitur...

zulutango

An File wrote:

That wasn't a non sequitur...

"A statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement."

phog

zulutango wrote: »

When faced with the option of driving a car or letting the car drive itself and spending one's time doing something more productive, the vast majority of people will choose the latter.

I love the flexibility I have when using my car, if my car can drive me around then I can sit back and relax or I can spend the time in my car being productive. My choice. So looking forward to it.

johnnyryan89

phog wrote: »

I love the flexibility I have when using my car, if my car can drive me around then I can sit back and relax or I can spend the time in my car being productive. My choice. So looking forward to it.

Stick a flat screen and Xbox into the front and a popcorn machine in the back and you'll be entertained while stuck in traffic.

Or stick the feet up and take a power nap if you live out in the Corbally.

osarusan

zulutango wrote: »

Nice non-sequitir there.

Their post makes sense.

Whether the car is owned by the driver, or booked for that particular journey, it's on the road either way.

There might be a drop in the number of cars in existence, but that doesn't mean a drop in the number of journeys being made by cars.

When you say that there will be "a collapse in the number of cars on our roads", it actually means that there will be a collapse in the number of cars parked outside homes.

phog

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

Stick a flat screen and Xbox into the front and a popcorn machine in the back and you'll be entertained while stuck in traffic.

Or stick the feet up and take a power nap if you live out in the Corbally.

Does it matter where I spend my travel time if the car is doing the driving and I can chill?

As it happens my trip to work in the mornings is less then 15 mins.

zulutango

osarusan wrote: »

Their post makes sense.

It makes sense on its own, but it doesn't logically follow from the previous point, i.e. it's a non sequitur.

osarusan wrote: »

Whether the car is owned by the driver, or booked for that particular journey, it's on the road either way.

There might be a drop in the number of cars in existence, but that doesn't mean a drop in the number of journeys being made by cars.

That's what I said. Glad you agree.

osarusan wrote: »

When you say that there will be "a collapse in the number of cars on our roads", it actually means that there will be a collapse in the number of cars parked outside homes.

No, that's only part of it. If you have the same amount of people requiring the same amount of journeys and the cars ferrying them around are being used more than they currently are, then less cars are required. There will also be no need for onstreet parking.

johnnyryan89

phog wrote: »

Does it matter where I spend my travel time if the car is doing the driving and I can chill?

As it happens my trip to work in the mornings is less then 15 mins.

I was agreeing with you. Can't wait until the car does the driving for me so can chill out in comfort while driving and take a power nap when stuck in the traffic out in Corbally.

marno21

zulutango wrote: »

It makes sense on its own, but it doesn't logically follow from the previous point, i.e. it's a non sequitur.



That's what I said. Glad you agree.



No, that's only part of it. If you have the same amount of people requiring the same amount of journeys and the cars ferrying them around are being used more than they currently are, then less cars are required. There will also be no need for onstreet parking.

They are two separate points, hence my use of the word 'and'.

My point is that it's not worthwhile saying that a car spends 98% of its life parked up if the issue at hand is the congestion its sitting in during the other 2% of the time.

zulutango

I think we're agreed that autonomous vehicles will lead to fewer cars. We might disagree on whether there will be less traffic congestion as a result.

osarusan

zulutango wrote: »

That's what I said. Glad you agree.

It wasn't what you said though, what you said was that it could lead to a collapse in the number of cars on the roads, and that therefore the road might be a huge waste of money.

But if X number of people need to make a journey by car, and that number isn't reduced, the number of cars on the road won't be reduced either. It'll just be fewer cars making the same amount of journeys.

So I'm not sure it really applies to the building of the distributor road.

zulutango wrote: »

Can you explain why you think they will lead to extra cars on the road?

All other things being equal, people who now cannot drive or don't have access to a car, and make their journeys by bike or public transport or whatever, would then have access to an autonomous car,which might increase the number of journeys made by car.

zulutango

osarusan wrote: »

It wasn't what you said though, what you said was that it could lead to a collapse in the number of cars on the roads, and that therefore the road might be a huge waste of money.

But if X number of people need to make a journey by car, and that number isn't reduced, the number of cars on the road won't be reduced either. It'll just be fewer cars making the same amount of journeys.

So I'm not sure it really applies to the building of the distributor road.


All other things being equal, people who now cannot drive or don't have access to a car, and make their journeys by bike or public transport or whatever, would then have access to an autonomous car,which might increase the number of journeys made by car.

Fair point. Sorry, I misread your post. Your last paragraph there is induced demand in a nutshell though. Build more roads and you get more cars, and more car dependency, and this is not a good thing for any city, whether they are regular cars or autonomous vehicles zipping around the place.

phog

The road is not just for the city though.

People live and want to live outside the city and their needs are as important as those that want city life.

zulutango

phog wrote: »

The road is not just for the city though.

People live and want to live outside the city and their needs are as important as those that want city life.

Roads like this promote and enable car dependent, dispersed settlement, which is not good because of the inherent inefficiency and high cost of provision of services. We're meant to be moving away from this kind of thing, not making it worse!

phog

zulutango wrote: »

Roads like this promote and enable car dependent, dispersed settlement, which is not good because of the inherent inefficiency and high cost of provision of services. We're meant to be moving away from this kind of thing, not making it worse!

Or maybe roads like that are meant to assist the people that want to live in areas like greater East Clare area, Shannon, Sixmilebridge, Cratloe, Meelick, Parteen, Clonlara, O'Brien's Bridge, Caherdavin, Moyross, Corbally, Annacotty and Castletroy.

zulutango

phog wrote: »

Or maybe roads like that are meant to assist the people that want to live in areas like greater East Clare area, Shannon, Sixmilebridge, Cratloe, Meelick, Parteen, Clonlara, O'Brien's Bridge, Caherdavin, Moyross, Corbally, Annacotty and Castletroy.

Personally I'd love to live in West Clare. Perhaps we should extend the motorway to Doonbeg? My commute would be 40 minutes. Very doable.

Vanquished

phog wrote: »

Or maybe roads like that are meant to assist the people that want to live in areas like greater East Clare area, Shannon, Sixmilebridge, Cratloe, Meelick, Parteen, Clonlara, O'Brien's Bridge, Caherdavin, Moyross, Corbally, Annacotty and Castletroy.

All well and good if you have an effective and well developed planning strategy. Sadly we have an incoherent, dysfunctional and often shambolic planning system in this country. We're still granting permission for a few thousand one-off houses down boreens every year. This is continuing to erode the viability or rural towns and villages and is resulting in far greater and longer trips from rural townlands in to local towns and in this case Limerick city. This simply fuels demand for yet more roads to facilitate such journeys.

We know that uncoordinated and dispersed settlement patterns makes it far more difficult and costly to deliver infrastructural services. If we could somehow promote the concentration of development in villages, towns and cities and introduce strict planning restrictions on one-off dwellings. Then we wouldn't need to be so concerned about projects such as this distributor road exacerbating and facilitating more rubbish and brainless planning policies and deveopment!

Insect Overlord

Sounds a bit dystopian Communist, to be honest. It's only a few steps away from saying we should all be living in high rise buildings in minimalist cells/small apartments, without our own choice of transport or property, and the countryside kept exclusively for agriculture.

zulutango

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Sounds a bit dystopian Communist, to be honest. It's only a few steps away from saying we should all be living in high rise buildings in minimalist cells/small apartments, without our own choice of transport or property, and the countryside kept exclusively for agriculture.

Eh, no .. no, it's not. It's about being sensible with the resources we have and aiming for a high quality of life for everybody. Would you describe Europe or the UK as dystopian Communist?

I can't believe you're honestly making the argument that having sensible planning laws is a few steps away from a dystopian Communist society. FFS. Are you Eamon O'Cuiv by any chance?

Vanquished

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Sounds a bit dystopian Communist, to be honest. It's only a few steps away from saying we should all be living in high rise buildings in minimalist cells/small apartments, without our own choice of transport or property, and the countryside kept exclusively for agriculture.

Absolute rubbish! We're almost unique in Europe in permitting such uncontrolled, dispersed development in rural areas to the detriment of local villages and towns. It's laughably hypocritical too when you consider Ireland likes to promote itself as a land of unspoiled, natural lanscapes. Yet we continue to pepper the countryside with ever bigger and more elaborate McMansions!

Insect Overlord

So the solution is to move everybody into towns and cities, pedestrianise the city centres, stop building roads, and invest in self-driving cars? All in the middle of a rent crisis and a housing shortage?

topper75

zulutango wrote: »

... not good because of the inherent inefficiency and high cost of provision of services...

And if that cost is gladly borne by those who choose to live outside suburbs?

Most people who live beyond the city did so after weighing up the pros and cons.

The place I work is souless. I certainly wouldn't want to live there. I didn't choose the site. I do however have choice over where I live.

The communist dystopia referred to was actually under our noses in Shannon town, a place where concrete went to die and would not have appeared odd east of the Caucusus. Planned by people who thought life was just a house and work and nothing more. Only in recent years has that been somewhat remedied and human spirit triumphed to create some semblance of a normal community. Say what you want about O Cuiv et al but at least they understand that is not the way for Ireland to go.

Let's not go down this path of pretending we are European and that what works for them works for us. It is as daft as the Chinese single time zone.

zulutango

topper75 wrote: »

And if that cost is gladly borne by those who choose to live outside suburbs?

Most people who live beyond the city did so after weighing up the pros and cons.

The place I work is souless. I certainly wouldn't want to live there. I didn't choose the site. I do however have choice over where I live.

The communist dystopia referred to was actually under our noses in Shannon town, a place where concrete went to die and would not have appeared odd east of the Caucusus. Planned by people who thought life was just a house and work and nothing more. Only in recent years has that been somewhat remedied and human spirit triumphed to create some semblance of a normal community. Say what you want about O Cuiv et al but at least they understand that is not the way for Ireland to go.

Let's not go down this path of pretending we are European and that what works for them works for us. It is as daft as the Chinese single time zone.

If the true cost of living in one-off settlements is borne by those who live there, then I think that's perfectly fair. However, I think you'll find that very few people can actually afford the true cost. The current situation is that urban taxpayers effectively subsidise the lifestyles of those who live rurally, which isn't fair at all.

I think you make a fair point about the likes of Shannon. This certainly is not the solution. Well designed, attractive villages, towns and cities with plenty of leisure amenities and with good transport links between them is the sensible way forward. One-off housing or soul-less, identikit, sprawling suburban housing estates create vast problems for society and they should not be permitted. If you are interested in this area, and open to changing your mind, then I'd recommend reading a book called 'Happy City' by Charles Montgomery.

marno21

There is currently a lack of road infrastructure in the north eastern quadrant of Limerick city considering it's home to a major university and several large employers. Its only decent road is the Dublin Road, a single carraigeway with plenty of roundabouts and busy junctions, and it has one connection to the motorway network.

It needs something more than this. This isn't a road to enable car based commuting/extra car use, it's to cater for existing needs.

bazz26

zulutango wrote: »

If the true cost of living in one-off settlements is borne by those who live there, then I think that's perfectly fair. However, I think you'll find that very few people can actually afford the true cost. The current situation is that urban taxpayers effectively subsidise the lifestyles of those who live rurally, which isn't fair at all.

I find that statement to be very arrogant, inaccurate and typical view of someone who doesn't see anything beyond the concrete pale. Go experience living outside a city and see how things work out there. People who live outside urban concrete, glass and steel sprawl have to pay for things that are already provided for in urban areas.

If you're going down the road of claiming whose tax is subsidising what, then look no further than the motorist who is the one being ridiculed in this thread, is of the most taxed groups and source of revenue for the government in this country for decades.

Here is a breakdown of what motorists pay in tax:

VAT on vehicle purchase,
VRT registration tax on vehicle purchase which already includes VAT,
Motor tax,
VAT on vehicle insurance,
Government levy on vehicle insurance,
Toll fee (including ,
NCT fee (includes VAT),
VAT on fuel,
Excise Duty on fuel.

That is a large proportion of tax that the Exchequer collects that it goes towards the running of the country for everyone. So guess who would end up contributing a large amount of tax towards the cost of pedestrianising city centres and improving public transport so that some can have the lifestyle they want in a city but others might not benefit from? I'm quite happy to keep my car out of the city centre if those who want improved public transport and pedestrianised streets pay for it themselves and I don't have to. In the real world tax doesn't get granulated like that.