Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Limerick Northern Distributor Road Plan

Options
1…5681011…66

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,317 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #213
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,409 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #214
    pigtown
    Registered Users Posts: 1,314 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #215
    testicles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,198 ✭✭✭testicles


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #216
    Vanquished
    Registered Users Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    topper75
    Registered Users Posts: 5,942 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #218
    zulutango
    Registered Users Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #219
    pigtown
    Registered Users Posts: 1,314 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #220
    Cookiemunster
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,077 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #221
    zulutango
    Registered Users Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,772 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #223
    mart 23
    Registered Users Posts: 327 ✭✭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 .


  • Options
    #224
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,409 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #225
    zulutango
    Registered Users Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #226
    zulutango
    Registered Users Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #227
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,892 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    zulutango wrote: »
    Nice non-sequitir there.

    That wasn't a non sequitur...


  • Options
    #228
    zulutango
    Registered Users Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭zulutango


    An File wrote:
    That wasn't a non sequitur...


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


  • Options
    #229
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,317 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #230
    johnnyryan89
    Registered Users Posts: 8,878 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #231
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,623 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,317 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #233
    zulutango
    Registered Users Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #234
    johnnyryan89
    Registered Users Posts: 8,878 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #235
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,409 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #236
    zulutango
    Registered Users Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #237
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,623 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #238
    zulutango
    Registered Users Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #239
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,317 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #240
    zulutango
    Registered Users Posts: 3,903 ✭✭✭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!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,317 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement