Limerick Northern Distributor Road Plan

kilburn

Interesting that you went back to pontificating about water levels you could be just another know all or an expert I don't know. People much more knowledgeable regarding the subject have the same opinion.

I already made my constructive point multiple times but you ignore if more water was released earlier rather than the tiny amounts released daily it would be of benefit.

Local TD's one who is an engineer have said the same.

Interesting that you didn't address being challenged on your callous wet feet comment.

Popoutman

Lets take that post of yours point by point, so there's no ambiguity or confusion on your part, shall we?

kilburn wrote: »

Interesting that you went back to pontificating about water levels you could be just another know all or an expert I don't know.

It is fairly apparent that you wish to make it clear that you don't know. Still, it doesn't matter what my skill levels or education background is if my points are correct and make sense - and mine are backed up by the figures and the research.

kilburn wrote: »

People much more knowledgeable regarding the subject have the same opinion.

"Citation Needed" please - it goes directly against the previous study done here: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/docs.floodinfo.opw/floodinfo_docs/Shannon_CFRAM/UOM2526/04_WaterLevelOperation/TD_HYDR_0114_V2_A_JAC_RiverLevelOperationReviewUoM2526_PLUS_NTS.pdf
Please see page 6 "Findings" and page 9 "Could recent summer floods have been managed differently?" for useful answers reinforcing my points. If you have access to any proper studies or documentation providing alternate views on this subject I'd be really interested to see them, as it would add to a lit review I'm doing privately here. I've you've any on-the-record comments that go against my points, I'd also be interested, as I can then have a direct chat with that person and see why they may have that opinion.

kilburn wrote: »

I already made my constructive point multiple times but you ignore if more water was released earlier rather than the tiny amounts released daily it would be of benefit.

No, your point was not constructive. It was a statement that was rebutted with figures that undermine your point and rendering your idea somewhat irrelevant. Again, simply put, more water released earlier would make no significant difference to the current levels of flooding seen in the lower Shannon area - the capacities of the system had been reached weeks previously - as I've clearly shown to you earlier. I'm not sure why you are handwaving around my point on this.

kilburn wrote: »

Local TD's one who is an engineer have said the same.

Which one? I've yet to meet a real engineer that disputes my points on this one when I've been chatting privately. As I'm not a local TD, I don't have a stake in the PR associated with the issue. Maybe the TD would prefer to be ambiguous on the subject?

kilburn wrote: »

Interesting that you didn't address being challenged on your callous wet feet comment.

I didn't want to divert away from the task of helping you with the flaws in your logic. Also, you had clearly missed my attempt to add levity to the situation. Your reaction does however show your viewpoint and state of mind.. Duly noted that text is probably not the best way to add humour to your day.


But, you've avoided my direct question, that I asked when you criticise those that have responsibility over the water levels. Given these details:

• 750 cumec exiting Lough Derg
• - For the previous fortnight
• 400 cumec capacity in Ardnacrusha
• The rest to be either held at Parteen Weir, or diverted to the old river course
• Less than a day's worth of storage capacity in the Canal
• Less than a day's storage capacity above Parteen Weir,
• Overflow at Parteen Weir renders all control impossible and guarantees huge floods on the old course.
• 200 cumec on the old course and fields start to flood,
• 300 cumec on the old course and houses in the flood plain get wet again.
• Add in the extra 2m of water level height at Spring High Tide into the mix as well

Tell us in detail how you would release more water earlier and still have no flooding.

The best and correct answer is that it is exactly as the ESB have already done. Instead of showering them with undeserved criticism, we should be thanking them for ensuring Limerick as a whole is not in a much worse state than it already is from the flooding.

I think I've said everything relevant to say on that topic, so I'll bow out of flood water discussions unless there's actually any further useful debate on it.

--
To bring the thread back on-topic, a new worry about the building of the NDR is, will the required earthworks cause restrictions on the Shannon water flood plains either forcing more water downstream more quickly and causing even more flooding to more people than are already in the wet zones, or (my guess) that the section from Annacotty westwards will end up being a bottleneck for floodplain floodwaters causing more flooding between Annacotty and Castleconnell, and upstream on the Mulcair as well.

kilburn

Popoutman wrote:

Which one? I've yet to meet a real engineer that disputes my points on this one when I've been chatting privately. As I'm not a local TD, I don't have a stake in the PR associated with the issue. Maybe the TD would prefer to be ambiguous on the subject?

Brian Leddin reference In the limerick leader.

I am not engaging with you any more on this, quote your figures away that's fine your attitude towards people who have been impacted shows it all.

I have better things to do you obviously don't.

Popoutman

kilburn wrote: »

quote your figures away that's fine your attitude towards people who have been impacted shows it all.

I note that you choose to avoid my question again - at least you have that avenue - the ESB didn't and still don't.
I do hope that you now have enough information to make an informed comment the next time you think about criticising those that have difficult choices to make

"My" figures are the absolute defining metric of the flooding after all - it's how one would measure the flooding after all.

Do as you see fit regarding any replies, but it's clear that one can't argue with the facts and realities of the current situation. Too much rain fell, and the storage capacities were overloaded, leading to an inevitability of some floodplain areas getting flooded again. Ardnacrusha was never intended to be flood control, but it acts pretty well for most situations. If it wasn't there, the flooding would be very much worse, and that's abundantly clear.

It is definitely unfortunate that some people have been affected. Personally, I'm just really thankful that the affected amount is very small compared to the possible situations had the ESB not acted as well as they have done.

The big picture is that the flooding is not good but could have been much, much worse. Please don't lose sight of that fact.

kilburn

Do you work for the ESB or waterways Ireland?

Glenomra

kilburn wrote: »

Do you work for the ESB or waterways Ireland?

wherever he or she works, they are exceptionally well informed and I for one are grateful for the remarkable detail. in my opinion we are fortunate to have a poster with such an encycclopaedic knowledge of the River Shannon and flooding. It corresponds exactly with what a friend of mine working in the ESB says, that the Shannon is an exceptionally slow moving river with a very large catchment area and consequently will flood regularly regardless of what anybody does. I understand from your posts kilburn that you or people close to you have been impacted on by flooding. Flooding of a person's house must be a very distressing experience and if it happened to me would certainly leave me angry and frustrated. Unfortunately, the Shannon will continue to fill its floodplains regularly in the future, probably to unprecented levels. Personally, I think the authorities should rehouse the families affected by the flooding in Springfield.

Popoutman

I must apologise for the accidental thread derailment - wasn't my intention at all.

I've officially got no irons in the fire on this discussion - I'm not employed by either of those agencies, though I have a lot of contacts in both.
Neither do I own any property in the affected areas.

I do genuinely feel sympathy for the affected, and I completely understand why someone in that situation would look to an outside agency for someone to blame.

I didn't feel however that the ESB was the correct group to complain about, as they've done as much as they can to minimise the damage that this much rain will cause, and I will take pains to highlight that.

kilburn

Glenomra wrote: »

wherever he or she works, they are exceptionally well informed and I for one are grateful for the remarkable detail. in my opinion we are fortunate to have a poster with such an encycclopaedic knowledge of the River Shannon and flooding. It corresponds exactly with what a friend of mine working in the ESB says, that the Shannon is an exceptionally slow moving river with a very large catchment area and consequently will flood regularly regardless of what anybody does. I understand from your posts kilburn that you or people close to you have been impacted on by flooding. Flooding of a person's house must be a very distressing experience and if it happened to me would certainly leave me angry and frustrated. Unfortunately, the Shannon will continue to fill its floodplains regularly in the future, probably to unprecented levels. Personally, I think the authorities should rehouse the families affected by the flooding in Springfield.

I am not angry or frustrated i just have an opinion on the flooding situation and what can or cannot be done which we all have

I have better things to do with my time than spending hours researching to make my self sound more important than some randomer on the Internets points, there is a study to disprove every study i am sure.

Lets get the thread back on track.

While everyone here has a different opinion on the road i really do hope we at least get the clare side of the road built

spacetweek

Is any of this road under construction right now? Hard to find anything on the web. CIS have this which was last updated March 2020.

Cookiemunster

spacetweek wrote: »

Is any of this road under construction right now? Hard to find anything on the web. CIS have this which was last updated March 2020.

The section from the Coonagh Roundabout to the Knockalisheen Rd (about 2km) is out to tender for construction, but the winning bid hasn't been announced yet. Probably delayed by Covid. https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/228129

The rest of proposed LNDR doesn't even have a route selected and is years away.

mart 23

Is it the NTA that would provide the budget/money for the LNDR to go ahead. ?

kilburn

Great to see the road mentioned as part of the transport plan for the region, hopefully it kicks on now

Glenomra

kilburn wrote: »

Great to see the road mentioned as part of the transport plan for the region, hopefully it kicks on now

A very interesting document with some wonderful aspirations. Much material to absorb. Just one extract re distributor road 'Temporary and permanent habitat loss, including direct impacts on European and National designated sites
a result of the construction of the LNDR;
§ Potential negative impacts on landscape character and visual amenity associated with new infrastructure
construction (particularly new road schemes);
§ Potential negative impacts on WFD objectives and flood risk associated with new infrastructure construction.
The LNDR is of particular note regarding flood risk impacts as the proposed route bisects a flood plain;'
interesting times ahead as they plan to build on one of the largest floodplains of the River Shannon, a Special Area of Conservation. I don't see it kicking off soon.

kilburn

Jesus they can do it in parts

Glenomra

'The implications of construction and operational effects should be
considered with reference to European sites, especially in the case of
the LNDR where the proposed corridor requires a new crossing of the
Lower River Shannon SAC. This has the potential for adverse effects on
Water dependant qualifying interest species and habitats, including
freshwater pearl mussel, Atlantic salmon, lamprey spp. and otter.' among many such entries. Very pleased at how the compilers identified so many constraints. At least people will know the environmental implications of trying to build this road.

Glenomra

also , 'The LNDR also has potential to undermine the Strategy
principles of facilitating compact growth and supporting
modal shift towards public transport, walking and
cycling.'

Glenomra

Great document, 'The LNDR proposed route passes through
Knockalisheen Marsh potential Natural Heritage Area
(pNHA) and the Lower River Shannon Special Area for
Conservation (SAC), as well as in relatively close
proximity to Woodcock Hill Bog NHA. Other as yet
unspecified future road construction would also likely
result in the temporary and permanent loss of habitat
and mortality/disturbance to wildlife (including
protected species).'
Our minister for Transport and green Party leader, Eamon Ryan will have a few decisions to make.

Glenomra

'The proposed LNDR is routed through an existing
flood plain within areas identified as having medium
and high risk of fluvial and coastal flooding under
current conditions and an increase in the
hardstanding within these catchments would help
increase flood risk; and
§ New or improved crossings of Water Framework
Directive (WFD) waterbodies will be required in a
number of locations, including new crossings of the
Lower Shannon and South Ballycannan, which may
potentially have negative impacts on WFD objectives
for affected waterbodies.'

Cookiemunster

Glenomra wrote: »

'The implications of construction and operational effects should be
considered with reference to European sites, especially in the case of
the LNDR where the proposed corridor requires a new crossing of the
Lower River Shannon SAC. This has the potential for adverse effects on
Water dependant qualifying interest species and habitats, including
freshwater pearl mussel, Atlantic salmon, lamprey spp. and otter.' among many such entries. Very pleased at how the compilers identified so many constraints. At least people will know the environmental implications of trying to build this road.

Road construction ALWAYS considers the environmental impact. In fact all construction does, because it's required to by law. They don't just throw down the road and think it'll be grand.

Glenomra wrote: »

Our minister for Transport and green Party leader, Eamon Ryan will have a few decisions to make.

He won't. There will be environmental reports done and ABP will decide whether it can be built or not. And they're is a junior minister over roads to keep him away from them.

Also could you not have put all those quotes into one post?

bazz26

How anyone could take this fella seriously is beyond me. Cannot even stay awake on the job.

mdmix

https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/commercial/arid-40061360.html

In case anyone is confused as to the purpose of the NDR.

Close to €4m worth of land capable of accommodating an estimated 500 homes has arrived on the market in Limerick, paving the way for major residential development not far from the city centre.

The lands, which were transferred to NAMA and are now the subject of a €3.8m receiver sale by KPMG, are at Clonconane, along the Old Cratloe Road and immediately adjacent to the proposed Limerick Northern Distributor Road (LNDR).

phog

mdmix wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/commercial/arid-40061360.html

In case anyone is confused as to the purpose of the NDR.

This land was already zoned for building private dwellings and would be built on with or without the LNDR.

mdmix

phog wrote: »

This land was already zoned for building private dwellings and would be built on with or without the LNDR.

not hope 50, not to mind 500 houses could have been built on the old cratloe road. Very frustrating to see the city centre decay while the local authority and state subsidise inefficient private housing at the edges of the city.

Cookiemunster

mdmix wrote: »

not hope 50, not to mind 500 houses could have been built on the old cratloe road. Very frustrating to see the city centre decay while the local authority and state subsidise inefficient private housing at the edges of the city.

The LNDR is still a pipe dream, yet this land is already zoned for housing. Therefore housing is not going to be built because just of the LNDR. Despite the sales spiel.

phog

mdmix wrote: »

not hope 50, not to mind 500 houses could have been built on the old cratloe road. Very frustrating to see the city centre decay while the local authority and state subsidise inefficient private housing at the edges of the city.

They built a 1,000 houses in Moyross and another 1,000 in Southill with no LNDR so what's your point

Glenomra

This section of the road is not a pipe dream. This section hasm all requisite planning and preliminary construction work has taken place. The completion of this section will happen within the next year imo. This section will be completed long before any planning permission is given for houses on the site mentioned.

phog

Glenomra wrote: »

This section of the road is not a pipe dream. This section hasm all requisite planning and preliminary construction work has taken place. The completion of this section will happen within the next year imo. This section will be completed long before any planning permission is given for houses on the site mentioned.

Are you trying to argue that the section of the LNDR was the reason that planning was allowed for those houses? Because it seems to me that was the point mdmix was trying to make or at least make people think that was the reason for the houses being built there.

Cookiemunster

Glenomra wrote: »

This section of the road is not a pipe dream. This section hasm all requisite planning and preliminary construction work has taken place. The completion of this section will happen within the next year imo. This section will be completed long before any planning permission is given for houses on the site mentioned.

The Coonagh to Knockalisheen road was designed and funded as part of the Limerick Regeneration to open up Moyross and allow development. It predates and has absolutely nothing to do with the LNDR around the North of the City that you're so against.

Oh and Coonagh to Knockalisheen won't be finished within a year. It has a build timeframe of 2 1/2 years, from whenever the contractor gets onsite.

Glenomra

I certainly am not making any connection between the possibility of houses being developed there and the LNDR. I just pointed out that this section of the road is not a pipe dream, that it will be built relatively soon. Quite simply I know nothing about any development land in that area.

Cookiemunster

Glenomra wrote: »

I certainly am not making any connection between the possibility of houses being developed there and the LNDR. I just pointed out that this section of the road is not a pipe dream, that it will be built relatively soon. Quite simply I know nothing about any development land in that area.

Oh right, I thought I was replying to mdmix. Whoops.