Limerick Northern Distributor Road Plan

phog

Insect Overlord wrote: »

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?

and do away with one way streets and only have well to do people living in the city centre.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

phog

If urbanisation and centralisation is the solution then surely we should all move to Dublin and let the government and/or the LA invest in quality high rise high density accommodation and infrastructure.

Why waste taxpayers money in trying to force people into living in Galway, Cork, Waterford and Limerick

Vanquished

phog wrote: »

If urbanisation and centralisation is the solution then surely we should all move to Dublin and let the government and/or the LA invest in quality high rise high density accommodation and infrastructure.

Why waste taxpayers money in trying to force people into living in Galway, Cork, Waterford and Limerick

Or we could just support the growth and development of the regional cities along with rural towns and villages in order to protect their viability. The result would be sustainable concentrations of population that are the norm in the developed world. As it is. Many of our rural towns and villages are struggling badly and are hemorrhaging services because they're being hollowed out by the policy of permitting scattered development of one-off houses. Flung out in all directions, miles from these settlements.

It's infuriating and baffling at the same time to listen to TD's and rural interest groups bemoaning what they see as the lack of support for rural Ireland. The problem is that the policies that they espouse and wish to implement are exactly those that have caused so much harm in the first place! Loosening controls on dispersed one-off housing will not save rural Ireland. Promoting the growth of local towns and villages is the only way we can make them more attractive for investment.

phog

Vanquished wrote: »

Or we could just support the growth and development of the regional cities along with rural towns and villages in order to protect their viability. The result would be sustainable concentrations of population that are the norm in the developed world. As it is. Many of our rural towns and villages are struggling badly and are hemorrhaging services because they're being hollowed out by the policy of permitting scattered development of one-off houses. Flung out in all directions, miles from these settlements.

It's infuriating and baffling at the same time to listen to TD's and rural interest groups bemoaning what they see as the lack of support for rural Ireland. The problem is that the policies that they espouse and wish to implement are exactly those that have caused so much harm in the first place! Loosening controls on dispersed one-off housing will not save rural Ireland. Promoting the growth of local towns and villages is the only way we can make them more attractive for investment.

How do you reckon the building of this road doesn't support the growth & development of regional towns/villages?

zulutango

jacksie66 wrote:

Well us lot here in O Briens Bridge will gladly welcome this road if it stops the huge volume of trucks trying to navigate the bridge. It's destroyed because of them..

Maybe we can find a solution that doesn't cost 140 million euro and which won't do all the damage the LNDR will do?

zulutango

phog wrote:

and do away with one way streets and only have well to do people living in the city centre.

What are you talking about? The city should be for everybody regardless of their income. It's utterly outrageous to suggest that it should not be for those who are less well off than you.

pigtown

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.

Absolutely their needs are important but that shouldn't prevent the council from trying to direct growth and development in an efficient manner. As it stands, Ireland's dispersed development pattern results in;
more septic tanks, inevitably leading to water pollution,
more paved roads, too expensive to maintain adequately,
very expensive/uneconomical broadband provision,
fewer rural shops, as everyone drives to their job and stops at the supermarket instead of their local shop

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.

Well that's just ridiculous

marno21 wrote: »

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.

I actually wouldn't have much of a problem if it was just to cater for existing needs but it's also intended to facilitate growth aswell, in my opinion in an unsustainable way.

phog wrote: »

How do you reckon the building of this road doesn't support the growth & development of regional towns/villages?

This road alone won't support the growth and development of regional towns, it would have to be coupled with very strict planning laws directing all new development into these towns, not on the outskirts or as one-off development.

phog

zulutango wrote: »

What are you talking about? The city should be for everybody regardless of their income. It's utterly outrageous to suggest that it should not be for those who are less well off than you.

This or at least the bit about Lwr Mallow St

Vanquished

phog wrote: »

How do you reckon the building of this road doesn't support the growth & development of regional towns/villages?

I'm dubious about the rationale behind the project. The contentious second phase runs through what is primarily open countryside in South East Clare. I fear the same mistakes will just be repeated once again. Poorly planned, poorly serviced, low density development facilitated by a lovely shiny new road with plenty of roundabouts to open up access to greenfield sites.

Clare County Council are probably rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of hoovering up piles of development levies while Limerick city is left to deal with the resulting congestion that will inevitably follow more uncoordinated development. History simply repeats itself. We just don't learn from our past mistakes in this country!

Vanquished

phog wrote: »

This or at least the bit about Lwr Mallow St

I live very close to Lower Mallow Street and can confirm that there are some unsavoury characters in accommodation there.

zulutango

phog wrote:

or at least the bit about Lwr Mallow St

Not sure what your point is. Are you inferring that because I pointed out how low property prices there have led to landlords doing deals with the HSE who have in turn put tough characters in the area that that somehow equates to me wanting the city for more well off people? That's a huge leap if so. I fundamentally believe the city should be for all people regardless of income so please don't infer otherwise.

Berty

In General

Jesus Wept

phog

zulutango wrote: »

Not sure what your point is. Are you inferring that because I pointed out how low property prices there have led to landlords doing deals with the HSE who have in turn put tough characters in the area that that somehow equates to me wanting the city for more well off people? That's a huge leap if so. I fundamentally believe the city should be for all people regardless of income so please don't infer otherwise.

Where do you want these people to live? Why should taxpayers aid private landlords in increases in their rents? If they want to increase their income then they should invest in their own properties.

zulutango

phog wrote: »

Where do you want these people to live? Why should taxpayers aid private landlords in increases in their rents? If they want to increase their income then they should invest in their own properties.

You've lost me there. Taxpayers are currently aiding private landlords through HSE contracts. You obviously think it's not a good idea?

kilburn

I have never seen such rubbish written in a thread as this has descended into.

At the end of the day Corbally is an absolute nightmare with traffic at peak times and this road is badly needed.

For all the objectors to the road I wonder how many have to deal with the traffic problems on a daily basis.

zulutango

kilburn wrote: »

At the end of the day Corbally is an absolute nightmare with traffic at peak times and this road is badly needed.

Two questions ..

Can you tell us why Corbally is an absolute nightmare with traffic at peak times?

Do you think there are other possible solutions to the problem?

johnmolloy554

zulutango wrote: »

Two questions ..

Can you tell us why Corbally is an absolute nightmare with traffic at peak times?

Do you think there are other possible solutions to the problem?

A query for you first, if you don't mind. Can you tell us all why Corbally is an traffic nightmare and the solutions you would propose?

kilburn

Schools, Creches, people commuting in from Clare, lack of options for people going to Work lots of people in the area are commuting to Shannon so it's the only way to travel.

Solutions - Northern Distributor Road, filter lanes could be introduced locally to help but the fact remains that won't fix the traffic issues

zulutango

johnmolloy554 wrote: »

A query for you first, if you don't mind. Can you tell us all why Corbally is an traffic nightmare and the solutions you would propose?

Yes, it's bad because a large residential area was built in an area with poor infrastructure, and in a place where it is difficult and costly to provide good infrastructure. It's simply very bad spatial planning. Much of this was the fault of Clare County Council. They should not have permitted the construction of Westbury, etc. This traffic problem is a legacy issue of the Limerick Metropolitan Area effectively having three local authorities managing it.

Solutions should be researched carefully. It's far too simplistic to say build another road to alleviate the traffic congestion. We know that more roads begets more cars which begets more roads. The local authority should commission experts to look at the problem and find good solutions instead of blindly assuming that the LNDR is the answer. More than likely the experts would recommend a range of measures that would involve public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure, some junction changes, construction of some roads that would be effective and far less costly and damaging than the LNDR.

kilburn

What's so damaging about this road?

riverrocked

zulutango wrote: »

We know that more roads begets more cars which begets more roads.

I'm not sure that this would be true of the Corbally Road, if the traffic that is trying to get to the other side of the city avoids this road then I'm sure there would be an increase on the number of those working in town who would cycle in as it wouldn't be as dangerous as it is at the moment. Even walking it would be more pleasant without the constant stream of cars from everywhere using the one road.

zulutango

riverrocked wrote: »

I'm not sure that this would be true of the Corbally Road, if the traffic that is trying to get to the other side of the city avoids this road then I'm sure there would be an increase on the number of those working in town who would cycle in as it wouldn't be as dangerous as it is at the moment. Even walking it would be more pleasant without the constant stream of cars from everywhere using the one road.

I think this is a nice idea, but the research shows that it doesn't work out like that. So long as the Corbally road is an option then you'll continue to get heavy traffic on it given that it's an artery into the city. You could actually get heavier traffic on it because the distributor road will enable people to access the city via that side who currently cannot do so. This is the induced or latent demand that transport planners talk about and it's a very well-researched phenomenon. If a serious effort is made to provide cycling and public transport infrastructure and implement measures to increase use of bikes and buses along the road, then it's a different story of course. But then you're talking about removing on-street parking in places, reducing vehicle lane widths, slowing vehicular traffic significantly, removing roundabouts and introducing traffic lights, giving pedestrians and cyclists priority, etc, etc.

kilburn

Not possible as there is already no on street parking and there are 2 bridges on this stretch.

Still waiting to hear why this road is so damaging?

pigtown

kilburn wrote: »

At the end of the day Corbally is an absolute nightmare with traffic at peak times and this road is badly needed.

johnmolloy554 wrote: »

A query for you first, if you don't mind. Can you tell us all why Corbally is an traffic nightmare?

Corbally is a traffic nightmare solely due to terrible planning. You can't allow that many houses to be built which have no real choice but to travel by car, and then not provide adequate roads for them to drive on. It's just common sense. However that is what happened and now we see the inevitable result.

kilburn wrote: »

For all the objectors to the road I wonder how many have to deal with the traffic problems on a daily basis.

Hands up I don't use the road very often but that shouldn't make my arguments less valid.

kilburn wrote: »

Solutions - Northern Distributor Road, filter lanes could be introduced locally to help but the fact remains that won't fix the traffic issues

This road is 1 solution. I think it's crazy that it seems to be the only solution that the authorities have considered. Was there even an investigation done on the possible other solutions? €140 million is a hell of a lot of money to just go with the first option.

kilburn wrote: »

What's so damaging about this road?

As I've said before, it does nothing to encourage sustainable development.

zulutango

kilburn wrote: »

Not possible as there is already no on street parking and there are 2 bridges on this stretch.

Still waiting to hear why this road is so damaging?

There is on-street parking on Athlunkard Street. The bridges are a challenge (there's actually three), but they don't make it impossible to provide good public transport and cycling infrastructure.

The road is damaging because ...

It's a serious dent on the exchequer.
It will have a major environmental impact.
It enables further low-density urban sprawl which massively stifles the economic potential of cities.

johnnyryan89

zulutango wrote: »

I think this is a nice idea, but the research shows that it doesn't work out like that. So long as the Corbally road is an option then you'll continue to get heavy traffic on it given that it's an artery into the city. You could actually get heavier traffic on it because the distributor road will enable people to access the city via that side who currently cannot do so. This is the induced or latent demand that transport planners talk about and it's a very well-researched phenomenon. If a serious effort is made to provide cycling and public transport infrastructure and implement measures to increase use of bikes and buses along the road, then it's a different story of course. But then you're talking about removing on-street parking in places, reducing vehicle lane widths, slowing vehicular traffic significantly, removing roundabouts and introducing traffic lights, giving pedestrians and cyclists priority, etc, etc.

Who in their right mind would use the distributor road to access the city via Corbally?

Also there is no on street parking on the Corbally road and good luck trying to make it more cycle friendly once you get to Scoil Ide.

OfTheMarsWongs

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

Who in their right mind would use the distributor road to access the city via Corbally?

Also there is no on street parking on the Corbally road and good luck trying to make it more cycle friendly once you get to Scoil Ide.

There is on street parking across from Hook & Ladder. Also with the lack of public swimming pools in Limerick I could see it being used by people to access Aura Grove Island.

Also don't forget St. Munchins and Ardscoil Mhuire.

johnnyryan89

OfTheMarsWongs wrote: »

There is on street parking across from Hook & Ladder. Also with the lack of public swimming pools in Limerick I could see it being used by people to access Aura Grove Island.

Also don't forget St. Munchins and Ardscoil Mhuire.

That part of the road is just wide enough that a car could park there without causing an obstruction, wouldn't really call it on street parking.

If Grove Island was further out the Corbally road then maybe but why go out of your way to get somewhere thats already near the centre of the city.

Whether this road is built or not you'll still have over nearly 1500 kids travelling to Munchins and Scoil Ide and again you'd wanna be mad to use the distributor road for Ardscoil Mhuire as like Grove Island its close to the city centre and you'll get caught in all the traffic travelling in from Clare to get to the schools out that way.

chicorytip

johnnyryan89 wrote:

Whether this road is built or not you'll still have over nearly 1500 kids travelling to Munchins and Scoil Ide and again you'd wanna be mad to use the distributor road for Ardscoil Mhuire as like Grove Island its close to the city centre and you'll get caught in all the traffic travelling in from Clare to get to the schools out that way.

The majority of these children live well within walking or cycling distance of their schools so why are more not doing so? I am referring to older primary and all second level students. Is it really necessary for Mummy or Daddy to escort Junior from the back of the car right to the classroom door?

kilburn

Have you ever tried to cycle in Corbally it's a death trap

zulutango

kilburn wrote:

Have you ever tried to cycle in Corbally it's a death trap

It is indeed. That's one of the reasons so many people are car dependent. Provide a safe cycling environment and many of them will switch to bikes. Parents will feel more at ease letting their kids cycle to school also. Hey presto, you don't need to build a 140 million euro distributor road.

johnnyryan89

chicorytip wrote: »

The majority of these children live well within walking or cycling distance of their schools so why are more not doing so?

You'll have to ask them yourself but I assume most people who get dropped off to school here are kids whose parents are already passing that way for work. Most people I know when I went to Munchins either walked or cycled unless you lived out past Westbury.

jonski

There's a strong bang of " I like to cycle so everybody else should " off this thread . If you want me to cycle then put a roof on the country .

Also I don't buy this "more roads mean more cars" . No one buys a car because traffic isn't heavy .

Here in the southside I would say most people are delighted with the motorway and how traffic isn't nearly as bad as it was . It also doesn't seem to have influenced any of my neighbors to buy more cars .

chicorytip

kilburn wrote:

Have you ever tried to cycle in Corbally it's a death trap

Yes. I cycle regularly in the locality and have never felt unsafe. There are real dangers for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists alike however, caused by what I would describe as irresponsible car parking outside Scoil Ide(on both sides of the road) and opposite Hook and Ladder.

Berty

chicorytip wrote: »

Yes. I cycle regularly in the locality and have never felt unsafe. There are real dangers for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists alike however, caused by what I would describe as irresponsible car parking outside Scoil Ide(on both sides of the road) and opposite Hook and Ladder.

Isn't that section set back from the road, not double yellow and quite safe to park as long as you park straight bumper to bumper of course.

I'd say the parking right outside the door on the double yellows is quite irresponsible moreso over the other side of the road.

zulutango

jonski wrote: »

There's a strong bang of " I like to cycle so everybody else should " off this thread . If you want me to cycle then put a roof on the country .

Also I don't buy this "more roads mean more cars" . No one buys a car because traffic isn't heavy .

Here in the southside I would say most people are delighted with the motorway and how traffic isn't nearly as bad as it was . It also doesn't seem to have influenced any of my neighbors to buy more cars .

The motorway doesn't seem to have influence any of your neighbours to buy more cars? That's it. The mods may as well close the thread now. Jonski's neighbours haven't bought more cars, there's lighter traffic because the motorway was built, everybody opposing the LNDR is just a zealous, fundamentalist cyclist who wants to convert the heathen motorists of Limerick, therefore the LNDR should be built. :rolleyes:

Seriously, is this what the discussion is reduced to??

Insect Overlord

zulutango wrote: »

The motorway doesn't seem to have influence any of your neighbours to buy more cars? That's it. The mods may as well close the thread now. Jonski's neighbours haven't bought more cars, there's lighter traffic because the motorway was built, everybody opposing the LNDR is just a zealous, fundamentalist cyclist who wants to convert the heathen motorists of Limerick, therefore the LNDR should be built. :rolleyes:

Seriously, is this what the discussion is reduced to??

You might want to think back on some of your own sarcastic points before throwing stones in the glasshouse.

zulutango wrote: »

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.

zulutango wrote: »

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?

zulutango wrote: »

What are you talking about? The city should be for everybody regardless of their income. It's utterly outrageous to suggest that it should not be for those who are less well off than you.

Could you provide us with references to some of the multitudinous studies and research that back up your arguments about traffic planning in the UK and Western Europe? You keep mentioning how it's been proven time and agian, but it would be nice to see the proof and find out if it would be applicable in a suburban, regional Irish context.

jonski

zulutango wrote: »

Seriously, is this what the discussion is reduced to??

It's where the discussion was at when I got here .

zulutango

There's nothing wrong with using sarcasm in order to make a legitimate point. It's quite a different thing to just ignoring all the points made and reducing the discussion as Jonski did.

As for research, I've provided loads of links already in this thread. Of course they're just ignored because people don't like what they say.

Vanquished

Insect Overlord wrote: »

You might want to think back on some of your own sarcastic points before throwing stones in the glasshouse.

zulutango wrote: »

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.

I think that's a fairly accurate summation of the prevailing attitude displayed towards planning and transportation in this country. Roads are the answer to everything and it isn't even worth our while considering other options! Sure don't you know, we're not Denmark. We're not the Netherlands. We're not Austria. Their fancy dan, hippy notions would never work here because we're so unique and special and we just know better. All the more hilarious when you consider our appalling and dismal record of failure in both urban and rural planning!

chicorytip

Berty wrote:

Isn't that section set back from the road, not double yellow and quite safe to park as long as you park straight bumper to bumper of course.

It's not a sufficiently wide enough section to accommodate both parked and inbound vehicles. Traffic can still pass, of course, but those who park with the intention of getting out and walking across the road are always at risk of being struck.

Strettie11

Zulutango,

I have actually taken the time to read some of what you have posted and it is interesting and keep sending them on. BUT and there has to be a but sometimes the full picture needs to be considered.

Take Groningen which you referenced with the 4 quadrants and not allowing traffic between them to allow the centre city be basically confined to bicycles and pedestrians. Is a great idea that seems to work for the most part very well for residents , businesses as you can imagine do have issues

What was missing though is they could achieve this because they have dual carriageway and motorway running on all 4 sides of the city. If you superimposed a map of Groningen on Limerick there would be motorway running through:
North : Moyross/Shannon Banks
West : Gaelic Grounds/ Greenpark
South : Childers Road
West : Castletroy Park Hotel

I am sure if the above was proposed there would not be many on here would be in favour of it but it allows Groningen residents are only a short drive from a motorway network that brings them to anywhere else in the city.

I would have thought that was more an argument in favour of "a" LNDR

But on the plus side of your argument Groningen have within the square bounded by the roads highlighted above managed to have 80% of their over 200,000 population living without opting for high rise, without opting for standard box houses and making cycling the preferred means of travel.

I had a friend who lived there for a year a complete petrolhead who selected a place to live so he had good parking. Within 4 months he was cycling everywhere.

zulutango

Yes, I think the Groningen example may lend some weight to the case for the LNDR or some version of it. If the Council proposed the LNDR in tandem with all the other measures that have been implemented in places like Groningen I'd probably support it. But if we build the LNDR without also implementing such measures, then we'll be sending Limerick down a very regressive track, i.e. continued sprawl, low density, car dependency, inefficient and ultimately not as economically strong as we could be. Bear in mind that Groningen is a compact city with a much higher population density. While the results there are impressive it doesn't automatically follow that they would work here, because we are already a low density city. I do think we can learn a lot from them though.

Strettie11

Its good that we are beginning to find some common ground on both sides of this discussion. I would also add to your list our public transport needs a reorganisation

zulutango

Public transport is a tricky one in Ireland. It needs a total overhaul. I'm nearly persuaded that it should be privately run, with regulation and minimum service commitments. And, of course, we need a massive investment in the infrastructure too.

marno21

The LNDR needs to be built also as a protected road that won't be just used for developers to open massive traffic magnets along the route. There should be no direct accesses apart from the ones for which the road is being built (University, Tech Park, Corbally etc).

There should, under no circumstances, be allowances made post construction for Mahon Point or Childers Road Retail Park esque developments that'll just ruin it with traffic jams.

Also, a proper connection to the M7 is the make or break of this scheme. Otherwise it'll just move the congestion to wherever it's tacked onto the Dublin Road.

johnnyryan89

marno21 wrote: »

The LNDR needs to be built also as a protected road that won't be just used for developers to open massive traffic magnets along the route. There should be no direct accesses apart from the ones for which the road is being built (University, Tech Park, Corbally etc).

There should, under no circumstances, be allowances made post construction for Mahon Point or Childers Road Retail Park esque developments that'll just ruin it with traffic jams.

Also, a proper connection to the M7 is the make or break of this scheme. Otherwise it'll just move the congestion to wherever it's tacked onto the Dublin Road.

Have an taisce said this road won't be built whatsoever or have they put some restrictions on it before they'll grant permission like as you said a protected road with only four or five slip roads and that all further development must be inside the ring road along with improving public transport.

Strettie11

Maybe the only exception to the direct access should be the cycle lanes to allow to connect with the local communities along the route.

pigtown

marno21 wrote: »

The LNDR needs to be built also as a protected road that won't be just used for developers to open massive traffic magnets along the route. There should be no direct accesses apart from the ones for which the road is being built (University, Tech Park, Corbally etc).

There should, under no circumstances, be allowances made post construction for Mahon Point or Childers Road Retail Park esque developments that'll just ruin it with traffic jams.

Also, a proper connection to the M7 is the make or break of this scheme. Otherwise it'll just move the congestion to wherever it's tacked onto the Dublin Road.

I'd be way more supportive of the road if that were the case. It's obvious that something substantial needs to be done to relieve congestion in the Corbally and Dublin Road areas. But it's absolutely guaranteed that the result of this road will be new retail/shopping/industrial parks, housing estates, and leisure complexes. There's no doubt about it. The only reason Clare County Council are so in favour of this road is all the new commercial rates they will get from new developments.If they were so concerned with connecting this part of Clare to the motorway network then there would have been a new bridge at Killaloe years ago.

None of these new developments will be public transport based. Walking and cycling won't be practical because most customers/workers will come from other areas of the region.

As far as I know the only way to guarantee no development along the road is to designate it as a motorway and let the NRA take charge. That's not going to happen and even if it did, the Ballysimon sea of industrial estates and retail parks is proof that this doesn't protect it. The City East Plaza office park is targeted to house thousands of workers, with everyone expected to drive as public transport is non existent there. A version of this on the LNDR would add considerably to the traffic volumes in the area.