Limerick Northern Distributor Road Plan

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Four lanes is virtually by definition a "dual" carriageway. What else would you call it?

A road. A dual carriageway has a central reservation down the middle, “by definition”

Treepole

Treepole wrote: »

It literally says that in what he quoted :rolleyes:

He said the new link road into Moyross would
be a single carriageway of 0.6 kilometres

That was added after i initially replied, hence my edit too.

Why not make the entire project single carriageway and use the excess funds for community projects and scholarships as I said above?

phog

phog wrote: »

The road through Moyross is not 4 lanes.

Any response to the other points I raised?

phog

Deleted User wrote: »

That was added after i initially replied, hence my edit too.

Why not make the entire project single carriageway and use the excess funds for community projects and scholarships as I said above?

You're getting two roads mixed up.

One is the Northern Distributor Road, to be of any value to the road users then this requires it to be dual carriageway.

The road through Moyross is a spur off the LNDR and is single carriageway.

phog

Deleted User wrote: »

That was added after i initially replied, hence my edit too.

The edit didn't materially change my initial post (other than add explanation for you confusion), the proposed road through Moyross is not a dual carriageway, which you claimed it was.

phog

phog wrote: »

You're getting two roads mixed up.

One is the Northern Distributor Road, to be of any value to the road users then this requires it to be dual carriageway.

The road through Moyross is a spur off the LNDR and is single carriageway.

So ultimately this isn't about Moyross, it's step one in the Northern ring road to facilitate UL's sprawl into Clare?

gryff

Deleted User wrote: »

So ultimately this isn't about Moyross, it's step one in the Northern ring road to facilitate UL's sprawl into Clare?

Is there a pushback by Clare people against the expansion of the UL campus into the county ? - You would imagine that its welcome and it also provides additional educational/sporting facilities which you seem to be a fan of..

MarkR

gryff wrote: »

Is there a pushback by Clare people against the expansion of the UL campus into the county ? - You would imagine that its welcome and it also provides additional educational/sporting facilities which you seem to be a fan of..

There was a blockade on the Clare side of that exit that was opened for a while. I don't know was the pushback related to a group or an individual.

phog

Deleted User wrote: »

So ultimately this isn't about Moyross, it's step one in the Northern ring road to facilitate UL's sprawl into Clare?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "ultimately", the road is back in the news because people in Moyross fell let down by the minister rowing back on the proposed road through Moyross. His proposal to use rail as an alternative is pie in the sky.

Now you can try muddy the water and bring in the whole LNDR into the discussion but that is all you're doing - muddying the water on the discussion.

keane2097

As a first pass at connecting Moyross and the neighbouring areas I would be for knocking down the concrete and steel spiked fortification between Moyross and the neighbouring areas. See if that helps.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EssbYWyW8AI0ZMm?format=jpg

See who is for and against too, which might be interesting.

phog

phog wrote: »

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "ultimately", the road is back in the news because people in Moyross fell let down by the minister rowing back on the proposed road through Moyross. His proposal to use rail as an alternative is pie in the sky.

Now you can try muddy the water and bring in the whole LNDR into the discussion but that is all you're doing - muddying the water on the discussion.

You are the one who wants to keep it a dual carriageway to facilitate the LNDR.

I simply asked if a single carriageway with the money saved going into community projects and scholarships going to the people living in Moyross is better for the people living there.

If providing scholarships and facilities for residents of Moyross is muddying the water then fair enough.

keane2097

keane2097 wrote: »

As a first pass at connecting Moyross and the neighbouring areas I would be for knocking down the concrete and steel spiked fortification between Moyross and the neighbouring areas. See if that helps.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EssbYWyW8AI0ZMm?format=jpg

See who is for and against too, which might be interesting.

That's an amazing photo tbf, really shows what the residents are really up against.

Afaik if you are from Moyross and want to attend LIT you have to take a very circuitous route to the campus, something LIT could fix overnight, tbh, if they want to. (Again it's been years since I was there so if that route has been re-opened I stand to be corrected)

keane2097

Deleted User wrote: »

That's an amazing photo tbf, really shows what the residents are really up against.

Afaik if you are from Moyross and want to attend LIT you have to take a very circuitous route to the campus, something LIT could fix overnight, tbh, if they want to. (Again it's been years since I was there so if that route has been re-opened I stand to be corrected)

I'm ambivalent about the road tbh, I could be encouraged to support or oppose it, but advocating it primarily as a connection for Moyross to the rest of the city? Colour me sceptical tbh

phog

Deleted User wrote: »

You are the one who wants to keep it a dual carriageway to facilitate the LNDR.

I simply asked if a single carriageway with the money saved going into community projects and scholarships going to the people living in Moyross is better for the people living there.

If providing scholarships and facilities for residents of Moyross is muddying the water then fair enough.

I've answered that already

FWIW, do you honestly believe for one minute that any money saved from a road project will be spent on scholarships then you don't understand budgets or government spend

sioda

keane2097 wrote: »

I'm ambivalent about the road tbh, I could be encouraged to support or oppose it, but advocating it primarily as a connection for Moyross to the rest of the city? Colour me sceptical tbh

I'm all for it of it takes traffic away from Hassetts cross and connecting areas. Also purely as not wasting any more money at least connect the Tesco road to the old Cratloe

mdmix

sioda wrote: »

I'm all for it of it takes traffic away from Hassetts cross and connecting areas. Also purely as not wasting any more money at least connect the Tesco road to the old Cratloe

It won’t take traffic away from hassets for any decent length of time. The reduction in traffic will simply encourage more people to buy a car and drive. Traffic will be back to normal within 1-2 years

phog

phog wrote: »

I've answered that already

FWIW, do you honestly believe for one minute that any money saved from a road project will be spent on scholarships then you don't understand budgets or government spend

It's more of a discussion point about the best uses of the proposed money for the community that this road is meant to serve. It's a huge sum of money, even if it's small relatively to what the Government spend.

Personally i think we need to be asking why LIT won't open the routes to their campus from Moyross. We need to be asking if the people in Moyross have enough educational supports to make it to third level. "Unskilled" jobs are disappearing, we need to make sure everyone is maximising their educational abilities. Does this road really achieve that? Will the promised industry actually set up there (and if it does, will jobs be reserved for people from Moyross?)

On a broader level, will facilitating urban sprawl stop the decline of the city centre, or should UL be compelled to build on brownfield sites between UL and the city? Should we insist that all new student villages are built between UL and the city centre? Likewise, should LIT be applauded for spreading towards Coonagh or should their campuses be built towards the city?

It's all discussion, but underlying the road discussion is an entire philosophy of how you want the city to develop. My preference is for a strong city centre full of students and young professionals who can access UL via public transport. And that city centre includes lads from Moyross who are getting the support to be the best versions of themselves they can be.

sioda

mdmix wrote: »

It won’t take traffic away from hassets for any decent length of time. The reduction in traffic will simply encourage more people to buy a car and drive. Traffic will be back to normal within 1-2 years

There is a hell of a lot of traffic from Parteen area that cuts around through Hassetts and Ivan's. How will it encourage car purchasing seriously

sioda

sioda wrote: »

There is a hell of a lot of traffic from Parteen area that cuts around through Hassetts and Ivan's. How will it encourage car purchasing seriously

It's called "induced demand", more roads lead to more traffic. Places that aren't suitable for housing estates currently suddenly get opened for such estates etc. Journeys that would have been hassle to make suddenly become easier.

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

It seems counter-intuitive but there you go.

sioda

Deleted User wrote: »

It's called "induced demand", more roads lead to more traffic. Places that aren't suitable for housing estates currently suddenly get opened for such estates etc. Journeys that would have been hassle to make suddenly become easier.

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

It seems counter-intuitive but there you go.

Ah here an article from 2014 about LA is not applicable at all to this situation, we are talking about connecting routes in the scheme of things there is no comparison.

Duplicate post for some reason.

sioda

sioda wrote: »

Ah here an article from 2014 about LA is not applicable at all to this situation, we are talking about connecting routes in the scheme of things there is no comparison.

The article is about the science behind it if you can spare the time to read it.

It's a really interesting topic, imo. One of those classic cases of solutions making the issue worse.

sioda

Deleted User wrote: »

The article is about the science behind it if you can spare the time to read it.

It's a really interesting topic, imo. One of those classic cases of solutions making the issue worse.

Who are you to assume I didn't read it I did and stand over what I said. It's talking about major arteries in large cities. What we are looking at here is a connection road in a small city

Do you honestly believe back in the 80s people on the Northside saw the Clondell road and thought let's buy a new car come on.

sioda

sioda wrote: »

Who are you to assume I didn't read it I did and stand over what I said. It's talking about major arteries in large cities. What we are looking at here is a connection road in a small city

Do you honestly believe back in the 80s people on the Northside saw the Clondell road and thought let's buy a new car come on.

We're talking ultimately about a road that will run from Coonagh to UL. UL have already proposed a new village on the Clare side of the river. That is sprawl tbh.

Surely you've noticed Annacotty and Mungret being swallowed by the city since the Southern bypass was completed? Again, more sprawl while the city centre dies away day by day.

Anyhow, your question has been answered, the science shows it won't really reduce traffic where you want it to, long term.

By the by, if the people of Limerick want the city to sprawl into Clare and out to Patrickswell while the city centre dies, that's their call, but we should at least be honest about our preferences.

Also, I assumed you didn't read it as there was 3 minutes between our posts, fair enough if you did in that time.

sioda

Deleted User wrote: »

We're talking ultimately about a road that will run from Coonagh to UL. UL have already proposed a new village on the Clare side of the river. That is sprawl tbh.

Surely you've noticed Annacotty and Mungret being swallowed by the city since the Southern bypass was completed? Again, more sprawl while the city centre dies away day by day.

Anyhow, your question has been answered, the science shows it won't really reduce traffic where you want it to, long term.

By the by, if the people of Limerick want the city to sprawl into Clare and out to Patrickswell while the city centre dies, that's their call, but we should at least be honest about our preferences.

Also, I assumed you didn't read it as there was 3 minutes between our posts, fair enough if you did in that time.

Ultimately this thread is but the last few days has been all about the Coonagh Moyross link.

Over 40 years living in the city from suburb to city centre has taught me that LCC haven't a clue but losing this link road is a very bad thing especially if it effects the LIT expansion.

sioda

sioda wrote: »

Ultimately this thread is but the last few days has been all about the Coonagh Moyross link.

Over 40 years living in the city from suburb to city centre has taught me that LCC haven't a clue but losing this link road is a very bad thing especially if it effects the LIT expansion.

Again, I'm discussing what's best for Moyross.

I agree re LIT's expansion btw but I'm not convinced a dual carriageway is the best thing since I'm certain the overall LNDR is terrible for the city. (Or at least, my preference for the city, if someone wants to defend sprawling housing estates for miles into Clare, they should feel free to set out their vision for the city).

I also find it strange people are dismissive of rail investment, when I lived in Limerick we used to hope for a rail link to Shannon. Not sure of the feasibility of same but if there's any reports people can link I'll read them.

Also, LIT could this evening start calling for the opening up of the routes from Moyross to their campus. They should have done so years ago anyhow.

sioda

What's best for Moyross imho is not having it as a dead end thus the road is essential. That had always been the fault of the original planning. I lived adjacent to this area for 20 years and Moyross was thrown under the bus in the 80s and 90s and forgotten about. I believe that this could open more opportunities for the area. Plenty of money was thrown at education set ups and some had fantastic results but bringing up the entire area was needed at the same time and the regen idea borked that entirely.

The walls around LIT were at the time essential due to the amount of anti social behaviour and crime on LITs ground.

Limerick is going to sprawl there is very little we can do about it, it's the Irish way of living but its a matter of controlling how and where. The LDNR gives another border to some of the sprawling.

My preference is a lively vibrant city centre with excellent living facilities which it does not have. We have badly built apartment blocks with rubbish insulation and heating even the newer stuff ain't great. Resistance to properly upkeeping the existing Georgian housing has led to appalling conditions.

sioda

sioda wrote: »

What's best for Moyross imho is not having it as a dead end thus the road is essential. That had always been the fault of the original planning. I lived adjacent to this area for 20 years and Moyross was thrown under the bus in the 80s and 90s and forgotten about. I believe that this could open more opportunities for the area. Plenty of money was thrown at education set ups and some had fantastic results but bringing up the entire area was needed at the same time and the regen idea borked that entirely.

The walls around LIT were at the time essential due to the amount of anti social behaviour and crime on LITs ground.

Limerick is going to sprawl there is very little we can do about it, it's the Irish way of living but its a matter of controlling how and where. The LDNR gives another border to some of the sprawling.

My preference is a lively vibrant city centre with excellent living facilities which it does not have. We have badly built apartment blocks with rubbish insulation and heating even the newer stuff ain't great. Resistance to properly upkeeping the existing Georgian housing has led to appalling conditions.

tbf, that's simply not true. We could refuse planning and have a blanket ban on housing estates more than a certain distance from a city centre. As an extreme, we could go even further and stop people from outside districts attending schools in that district (like in the UK), so anyone who wanted to send their kids to Laurel Hill has to live within 5 miles (or whatever) of the school. We could and should demand better from our property developers than what they currently provide. there is literally 100's of things we could do to stop sprawl, if we had the will to do it. How about a 90% windfall tax on anyone who buys agricultural land in the hope it's rezoned for housing (another extreme obviously).

Every bit of sprawl makes it harder to build a cohesive city centre, since you need people living near the facilities to keep them viable.

If LIT had a problem with anti-social behaviour, the solution was better policing not building walls to shut out entire communities.

banie01

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Also, LIT could this evening start calling for the opening up of the routes from Moyross to their campus. They should have done so years ago anyhow.

What routes from Moyross?

I've previously outlined what the border from LIT to Cliona and Moyross is.
Or more accurately what it was, without wholesale demolition of houses in Cliona park, major road realignment and other works.
There is none.

There is an access point from College avenue onto the Thomond College campus, that is closed at times set by the school.

Even if that access point was used?
Again, wholesale demolition of houses, a main road routed through a school campus and inward through a housing estate before joining the old Cratloe Road.

As for rail access?
The current line would ideally need to be double tracked.
The loop of rail in that area offers great park and ride potential.
Lots of space for parking and keeping traffic out of the city centre.
There is however a huge and immediately obvious flaws.
To actually get to the carpark, that should ideally be near the proposed rail station?

A road capable of taking traffic from the N18 into and out of Moyross is needed.

Leaving the road unfinished will only heighten the sense of abandonment many in the community already deal with.

sioda

Deleted User wrote: »

tbf, that's simply not true. We could refuse planning and have a blanket ban on housing estates more than a certain distance from a city centre. As an extreme, we could go even further and stop people from outside districts attending schools in that district (like in the UK), so anyone who wanted to send their kids to Laurel Hill has to live within 5 miles (or whatever) of the school. We could and should demand better from our property developers than what they currently provide. there is literally 100's of things we could do to stop sprawl, if we had the will to do it. How about a 90% windfall tax on anyone who buys agricultural land in the hope it's rezoned for housing (another extreme obviously).

Every bit of sprawl makes it harder to build a cohesive city centre, since you need people living near the facilities to keep them viable.

If LIT had a problem with anti-social behaviour, the solution was better policing not building walls to shut out entire communities.

They tried better policing it didn't work and the simple work around was the wall and it's remained as walls often do.

The traditional idea of living for the majority of Irish people is house in suburbs with garden yes it's slowly changing but not fast enough. I'm not touching the schooling issue as it hasn't been right since 1996.