Limerick improvement projects

martyc5674

Berty wrote: »

I don't believe there is enough room for 2 cycles lanes and 3 vehicle lanes. I still remember the council having to widen the left hand most inbound lane because it was completely incorrectly lined compared to the two others. The outbound was so wide that a small car could overtake another small car without impacting on the inbound. If you squeeze the 3 lanes with cycles lanes on both sides then I don't see that it would work.

Thing somebody maybe needs a better measuring tape.

i dont believe there is room either- the left inbound lane (now the contraflow cycle lane was added after the bridge was built as a temporary measure until the tunnel was built.)
There is only 1 lane coming in the condell road- then one lane coming from salesians, which are regulated by alternating traffic lights, an additional lane is not a solution because the problem is not the bridge- the problem is there are too many cars in the city already, not allowing the bridge to empty when at/near capacity.
There are too many vehicles opting to come over shannon bridge and out the dock road, that is the problem that needs to be tackled.

I fear the removal of the cycle lane "whilst its being done properly" we could be years waiting for that to happen- the council were advised in 2015 that the bridges were a hinderance to cycling/sustainable transport and they did nothing until forced to through a pandemic.


That petition is a total farce- and its pretending to be pro cycling when it is clearly the opposite.

We need to promote sustainable transport and if that means it takes you an extra 10 minutes sitting in the comfort of your car then sorry- thats not a bad price during a pandemic.
Marty.

mdmix

Cookiemunster wrote: »

I've only seen cyclists using it inbound and because of the stupid way its lined, cycling inbound in the outbound lane. It should be removed and done properly with a segregated lane on either side of the bridge.

agreed. The rational used by the council is that a part 8 would have been required make changes to both sides (possibly because there is only a single outbound lane), but that 1 of the existing lanes could be repurposed without planning. Cllr Dan Butler is advising the medium term goal is a part 8 for what you are suggesting. Hopefully they keep the current layout till than, as it is still better than what was there before.

martyc5674

mdmix wrote: »

agreed. The rational used by the council is that a part 8 would have been required make changes to both sides (possibly because there is only a single outbound lane), but that 1 of the existing lanes could be repurposed without planning. Cllr Dan Butler is advising the medium term goal is a part 8 for what you are suggesting. Hopefully they keep the current layout till than, as it is still better than what was there before.

Its not ideal- but people are using it by in large in both directions, yeah sure if your coming in the dock road by bike and going out the condell road chances are youll avoid using it, but if coming from the city chances are you will use it.

BTW Daniel Butler talks through both sides of his mouth, he is only interested in easy votes, not in spending the time explaining to his constituents what the right thing is to do long term from a wholistic view point.
He would knock the bridge into the shannon in the morning if it guaranteed him reelection.
Marty.

phog

I think the proposal is to use the existing bridge to support two cycle lanes outside the existing railings.

martyc5674

phog wrote: »

I think the proposal is to use the existing bridge to support two cycle lanes outside the existing railings.

Which sounds lovely but we all know will never happen- which is why we need to retain what we have until the permanent solution is agreed and ready to execute.
What we have is not ideal by any means but is so much better than empty promises we have had to date.

mdmix

honestly, there will never be a better time to add cycle/bus lanes. When the tunnel opened, my commute by car (which brought me through town) went from just short of an hour to 25 minutes. We should have implemented cycle/bus priority measures then and we didn't.

Had we made alternative transport a priority, we could have had twice the number of public transport users and 3 or 4 times the amount of cyclists and walkers. It might have meant a short term delay for motorists, but would have benefitted everyone in the long term.

The temporary measures in cork (for all there flaws), received 2 million euro - because cork city council applied for it. Limerick applied for and received 100k. Its very disheartening to see Limerick council drag their heals on this, when pretty much every city in the world is scrambling to adjust to the new transport needs.

The biggest transport issue in Limerick is the school run. There is no reason we should not aim to move at least 50% school kids to alternative transport, which would have a bigger impact than any new road or even monorail.

Brian Lighthouse

My t'upence worth.

Remove the toll gate from the tunnel. Free access to the tunnel.
You won't see a car - apart from local traffic - on the Shannon Bridge and you could have the world's first eight lane cycle highway, just on the bridge of course ;-). (You saw it here first folks)

Joking aside: The way I see it is like this, the council didn't pander to the will of the cycle lobby so easily without them having their own agenda behind it. I think, really, this is my own opinion; that they want to drive (good pun eh?) more traffic through the tunnel.
If they didn't have their own motivation for providing this cycle lane, I think it would never have appeared. There's no-one better at playing the long game in Limerick than the council, they are masters at it. I reiterate, this is an opinion I have. And! I could be totally wrong.

I believe that if both sides want to dispense with the squabbling over a cycle lane - the existence or removal - and come together to lobby for the removal of the toll or a residential tag or something then they might actually get a result that suits them both.

My own experience - I've crossed that bridge daily since the lane was introduced both walking and driving and apart from organised events I've seen a total of 5 people use the cycle lane. I've seen ten times that amount not use it and cycle on the outbound lane.

For the record, I fully support cycling in the city and my views and ideas were published on the Limerick Cycling Campaign's website coming up the the last local elections. I am still of the opinion that to make cycling lanes work in Limerick that the heaviest used route needs to be established and properly constructed and when it is shown to be a success there is a hook to hang the next argument for another cycle lane and so on.

Without discrediting the efforts already in place by campaigners; I don't see how a sustained campaign can be orchestrated currently. If I remember correctly the Wickham Street lane was lambasted by some sections of the cycle lobby. I believe the cycle bus is a popular one that brings children from the northside of the river to school in the southside, but I don't know the demographic, like are the users predominantly from one school year? What happens when they complete their education in that particular establishment? Is it sustainable without the current crop of driving forces behind it? If anyone knows these answers, please let us all know.

One thing that should not be forgotten is that when the officials in the Council are making their decisions that they will be thinking of everyone that uses the road space, from articulated lorries to toddlers on a bike with stabilisers. Some things will work and many times some things wont.
For example, the plastic bollards (movable ones) along Bishop's Quay. I've seen people get irate that "motorists" are moving them and it's part of a strategy of war between the "I pay road tax" and "I Cycle" groups. Well, I've carried out some observations here and motorists can generally turn without moving them, unfortunately the drivers of Rigid trucks can't. And, in my experience that's when the bollards get moved.
I would ask people to chill on the "us vs them" standpoint and come up with a coherent and sustained campaign and it can be a success, I don't see why it cannot. But "Mary" wanting a cycle lane here and "Paddy" wanting one there will not work.

Jaysus, that turned out to be about a half a crown's worth in the end. ;-)

martyc5674

Brian Lighthouse wrote: »

My t'upence worth.

Remove the toll gate from the tunnel. Free access to the tunnel.
You won't see a car - apart from local traffic - on the Shannon Bridge and you could have the world's first eight lane cycle highway, just on the bridge of course ;-). (You saw it here first folks)

Joking aside: The way I see it is like this, the council didn't pander to the will of the cycle lobby so easily without them having their own agenda behind it. I think, really, this is my own opinion; that they want to drive (good pun eh?) more traffic through the tunnel.
If they didn't have their own motivation for providing this cycle lane, I think it would never have appeared. There's no-one better at playing the long game in Limerick than the council, they are masters at it. I reiterate, this is an opinion I have. And! I could be totally wrong.

I believe that if both sides want to dispense with the squabbling over a cycle lane - the existence or removal - and come together to lobby for the removal of the toll or a residential tag or something then they might actually get a result that suits them both.

My own experience - I've crossed that bridge daily since the lane was introduced both walking and driving and apart from organised events I've seen a total of 5 people use the cycle lane. I've seen ten times that amount not use it and cycle on the outbound lane.

For the record, I fully support cycling in the city and my views and ideas were published on the Limerick Cycling Campaign's website coming up the the last local elections. I am still of the opinion that to make cycling lanes work in Limerick that the heaviest used route needs to be established and properly constructed and when it is shown to be a success there is a hook to hang the next argument for another cycle lane and so on.

Without discrediting the efforts already in place by campaigners; I don't see how a sustained campaign can be orchestrated currently. If I remember correctly the Wickham Street lane was lambasted by some sections of the cycle lobby. I believe the cycle bus is a popular one that brings children from the northside of the river to school in the southside, but I don't know the demographic, like are the users predominantly from one school year? What happens when they complete their education in that particular establishment? Is it sustainable without the current crop of driving forces behind it? If anyone knows these answers, please let us all know.

One thing that should not be forgotten is that when the officials in the Council are making their decisions that they will be thinking of everyone that uses the road space, from articulated lorries to toddlers on a bike with stabilisers. Some things will work and many times some things wont.
For example, the plastic bollards (movable ones) along Bishop's Quay. I've seen people get irate that "motorists" are moving them and it's part of a strategy of war between the "I pay road tax" and "I Cycle" groups. Well, I've carried out some observations here and motorists can generally turn without moving them, unfortunately the drivers of Rigid trucks can't. And, in my experience that's when the bollards get moved.
I would ask people to chill on the "us vs them" standpoint and come up with a coherent and sustained campaign and it can be a success, I don't see why it cannot. But "Mary" wanting a cycle lane here and "Paddy" wanting one there will not work.

Jaysus, that turned out to be about a half a crown's worth in the end. ;-)

They ought to want more traffic through the tunnel - we taxpayers are paying millions in lost deficit each year to subsidise its lack of use, such a ridiculous agreement in the first place.
Millions that could and should be diverted into public and sustainable transport.


The council are only good at playing the long game as the executive are useless and disconnected, getting pay rises annually on years served and not on performance.
Wickham street was lambasted because it failed to actually deliver a safe and simple cycling lane. This is how inept the council are.(the cycling campaign held their hand through the process but they literally failed unbelievably at every step)

You must be hitting the bridge at way different times to me- i see lots of people using it, and most are in it- but it needs to be connected better, at the moment it is just the removal of a dangerous pinchpoint, nothing else, its hardly cycling infastructure. Its not like suddenly we have segregated cycle lanes bringing us from estates on the northside etc right into the city, anything but!
We shouldn't have to argue as you say for the next cycle lane- if the council were serious about sustainable transport they would be forcing us out of our cars, and considering cycle lanes on all major routes into the city. But we are lightyears behind in Limerick. Everything has to be forced and fought for.

Brian Lighthouse

martyc5674 wrote: »

They ought to want more traffic through the tunnel - we taxpayers are paying millions in lost deficit each year to subsidise its lack of use, such a ridiculous agreement in the first place.
Millions that could and should be diverted into public and sustainable transport.

Hi Marty,
I agree when you say: "they ought to want more traffic through the tunnel", But look on the bright side, in 2041 the state will own the tunnel and it will have been bought and paid for.

martyc5674 wrote: »

The council are only good at playing the long game as the executive are useless and disconnected, getting pay rises annually on years served and not on performance.

Ah, I don't think that's fair to say. They are lucky with the contracts they have. Some people might be worth the money and others not, but that's the system. You can say the same about any executives in any firm.
Also, let's pretend that I'm a council executive and I know that you hold these views on me, that I'm not there through merit, I'm there through years served, you consider me and my team useless, disconnected and inept. Why would I enter any negotiation with you? I would feel that you have written me off even before we meet for the first time? That your bias and prejudice towards us will not have us engaging in meaningful discussion.

martyc5674 wrote: »

Wickham street was lambasted because it failed to actually deliver a safe and simple cycling lane. This is how inept the council are.(the cycling campaign held their hand through the process but they literally failed unbelievably at every step)

Well, I think that might be incorrect. It is a simple cycle lane.

martyc5674 wrote: »

You must be hitting the bridge at way different times to me- i see lots of people using it, and most are in it

Yes, probably. Thank you, I'm glad to hear it is being used.

martyc5674 wrote: »

but it needs to be connected better, at the moment it is just the removal of a dangerous pinchpoint, nothing else, its hardly cycling infastructure. Its not like suddenly we have segregated cycle lanes bringing us from estates on the northside etc right into the city, anything but!

Agreed.

martyc5674 wrote: »

We shouldn't have to argue as you say for the next cycle lane

I didn't mean argue as in confrontational, I meant it as putting forward an argument for the provision of... meaning overcoming objections, presenting data supporting the argument / idea etc etc.

martyc5674 wrote: »

if the council were serious about sustainable transport they would be forcing us out of our cars, and considering cycle lanes on all major routes into the city.

Well, good timing here then; the public consultation is currently open for the new Limerick Development plan 2022-2028. Now is your chance to put forward proposals.
https://www.limerick.ie/council/newsroom/public-notices/pre-draft-public-consultation-phase-proposed-limerick-development
But when considering proposals for this plan I don't think they can simply look through one lens, they will have to consider everyone and view a spectrum so to say.

martyc5674 wrote: »

But we are lightyears behind in Limerick.

Perhaps.

martyc5674 wrote: »

Everything has to be forced and fought for.

That is part of life. You want something? No-one is going to walk up to your door and hand it to you.

I would like to see good transport options here, but we can only work with what we have. I firmly believe that a concerted effort could see some decent changes come about and it can be done, but, I'll repeat myself. Identify a route that will be an instant success in terms of use, push for the funding, and when it is demonstrated that the route is being used there is a really strong case to expand the network.
I don't hear a united lobby currently, I hear fragmentation, I hear "us vs them". I hear people describe their vision through their own lens.
Unfortunately, I haven't heard one coherent proposal that encapsulates many views and considers all road users.
I would like to.

And once again, I post this in case anyone hasn't seen it yet ;-)
https://www.facebook.com/voteno.1brianoconnor/videos/2269396509835012/?v=2269396509835012

All the best
Brian

Cookiemunster

We the tax payer haven't paid a penny for the tunnel in the last 3 or 4 years. Traffic levels had been above 24k a day before the virus hit.

mgbgt1978

martyc5674 wrote: »

Its not ideal- but people are using it by in large in both directions, yeah sure if your coming in the dock road by bike and going out the condell road chances are youll avoid using it, but if coming from the city chances are you will use it.

BTW Daniel Butler talks through both sides of his mouth, he is only interested in easy votes, not in spending the time explaining to his constituents what the right thing is to do long term from a wholistic view point.
He would knock the bridge into the shannon in the morning if it guaranteed him reelection.
Marty.

Ah here. So , if I'm driving over the bridge it's a complete no-no for me to use the cycle lane.
But if I'm cycling I am completely within my rights to cycle outbound over the bridge at 5 km/h and cause a decent tailback of traffic (despite the thousands spent on a specific outbound cycle lane.
You/they can't have it both ways Marty :rolleyes:.


BTW , you may as well remove Butler's Name from your post and just insert 'any Politician'

martyc5674

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Ah here. So , if I'm driving over the bridge it's a complete no-no for me to use the cycle lane.
But if I'm cycling I am completely within my rights to cycle outbound over the bridge at 5 km/h and cause a decent tailback of traffic (despite the thousands spent on a specific outbound cycle lane.
You/they can't have it both ways Marty :rolleyes:.


BTW , you may as well remove Butler's Name from your post and just insert 'any Politician'

I was highlighting that it wasn’t ideal- and that is one reason it’s not ideal - there are a few issues with it but it’s better than nothing which is what we had.

As for Butler- I think we have some good councilors at present who aren’t afraid to stick their heads above the parapet. He’s not one of them.

phog

martyc5674 wrote: »

Which sounds lovely but we all know will never happen- which is why we need to retain what we have until the permanent solution is agreed and ready to execute.
What we have is not ideal by any means but is so much better than empty promises we have had to date.

The current lanes are half arsed at best and leads to all sorts of criss-crossing of traffic lanes to enter/exit depending on your journey, it's really only safe fro cyclists while they're on but it can be a danger for some as they enter or exit them.

If enough people sign the petition and a few councilors get involved then the council will act.

Mc Love

phog wrote: »

A campaign has started to install cycle lanes on both sides of Shannon Bridge rather than the half arsed effort they have at the moment.

Sign the petition here

This is just to restore the motor lanes hidden behind a thinly veiled attempt to say its for cyclists safety. Nice try "silent majority"

martyc5674

phog wrote: »

The current lanes are half arsed at best and leads to all sorts of criss-crossing of traffic lanes to enter/exit depending on your journey, it's really only safe fro cyclists while they're on but it can be a danger for some as they enter or exit them.

If enough people sign the petition and a few councilors get involved then the council will act.

I agree- it is far from Ideal - but it does provide safe access to and from the city over the bridge that was otherwise hostile @ best for cyclists.

That petition has only one ambition-remove the temporary cycling lane. Yet it pretends to be pro cycling.

If you are concerned about cycling safety, then sign the other petition thats circulating that asks that the temporary lane be kept until such time as they are ready to build the permanent ones, otherwise you are putting "moving traffic" above peoples safety.

Mc Love

phog wrote: »

The current lanes are half arsed at best and leads to all sorts of criss-crossing of traffic lanes to enter/exit depending on your journey, it's really only safe fro cyclists while they're on but it can be a danger for some as they enter or exit them.

If enough people sign the petition and a few councilors get involved then the council will act.

The other petition to retain the cycle lanes has a lot more signatures....

The only danger to cyclists are motorists tbh

Brian Lighthouse

Four wheels good, two wheels better.

I'm out. Best of luck.

geotrig

martyc5674 wrote: »

Wickham street was lambasted because it failed to actually deliver a safe and simple cycling lane. This is how inept the council are.(

I've cycled on bits of it a few times and don't see any issue ?? and its looks fairly simple if you ask me !

Mc Love wrote: »

The other petition to retain the cycle lanes has a lot more signatures....

The only danger to cyclists are motorists tbh

the only danger is separatists mindsets , we are all road users and need to share the space , cars ,bikes and pedestrians ! everyone can point our how dangerous the actions of each "other" group is ! its gets people nowhere really

mdmix

geotrig wrote: »

I've cycled on bits of it a few times and don't see any issue ?? and its looks fairly simple if you ask me !

Instead of segregating the cycle lane, the council added a small raised curb that does not deter drivers who wish park in the cycle lane. The raised curb does make it more difficult for a cyclist to move around a parked car, which in fact makes the cycle lane more dangerous than the road.

the only danger is separatists mindsets , we are all road users and need to share the space , cars ,bikes and pedestrians ! everyone can point our how dangerous the actions of each "other" group is ! its gets people nowhere really

If a space is not designed to be shared, then it is not a shared space. Look at OConnel street, 4 lanes dedicated to cars. What is the speed limit 50kph?

colm_mcm

mdmix wrote: »

Instead of segregating the cycle lane, the council added a small raised curb that does not deter drivers who wish park in the cycle lane. The raised curb does make it more difficult for a cyclist to move around a parked car, which in fact makes the cycle lane more dangerous than the road.





If a space is not designed to be shared, then it is not a shared space. Look at OConnel street, 4 lanes dedicated to cars. What is the speed limit 50kph?

4 lanes?

geotrig

mdmix wrote: »

Instead of segregating the cycle lane, the council added a small raised curb that does not deter drivers who wish park in the cycle lane. The raised curb does make it more difficult for a cyclist to move around a parked car, which in fact makes the cycle lane more dangerous than the road.

mdmix wrote: »

Instead of segregating the cycle lane, the council added a small raised curb that does not deter drivers who wish park in the cycle lane. The raised curb does make it more difficult for a cyclist to move around a parked car, which in fact makes the cycle lane more dangerous than the road.





If a space is not designed to be shared, then it is not a shared space. Look at OConnel street, 4 lanes dedicated to cars. What is the speed limit 50kph?

I'm not aware of wickham street being a parking black spot and from my limited cycling on it it works well ! do you have an example of a segregated cycle lane that was wanted ? In my mind that seems to hinder pedestrians of its segregated off ?

four lanes ? I take it you are counting the parking on o'connell street ,which to be fair I wouldn't mind them removing. but it's a "shared space" ,I have cycled up it numerous times without hassle , obviously no cycle lane but you can't claim its not shared

johnnyryan89

colm_mcm wrote: »

4 lanes?

Two lanes for driving with parking spaces either side.

Cookiemunster

johnnyryan89 wrote: »

Two lanes for driving with parking spaces either side.

That's not 4 lanes though.

phog

martyc5674 wrote: »

I agree- it is far from Ideal - but it does provide safe access to and from the city over the bridge that was otherwise hostile @ best for cyclists.

That petition has only one ambition-remove the temporary cycling lane. Yet it pretends to be pro cycling.

If you are concerned about cycling safety, then sign the other petition thats circulating that asks that the temporary lane be kept until such time as they are ready to build the permanent ones, otherwise you are putting "moving traffic" above peoples safety.

The other petition is trying to retain cycle lanes which in my opinion are unsafe to join or exit depending on your route.

Do ye accept that?

martyc5674

phog wrote: »

The other petition is trying to retain cycle lanes which in my opinion are unsafe to join or exit depending on your route.

Do ye accept that?

I don’t agree with that- I will say they are not convenient to join/exit from certain routes.
Having to use pedestrian crossings/lights to enter/exit is not ideal- but it’s hard to say it’s unsafe.

I also know how the council works- if we were to get rid of the temporary one they will drag their heals providing the permanent solution.

The petition your pushing is asking for the current lane to be removed- that increases the risk posed to cyclists.

phog

martyc5674 wrote: »

I don’t agree with that- I will say they are not convenient to join/exit from certain routes.
Having to use pedestrian crossings/lights to enter/exit is not ideal- but it’s hard to say it’s unsafe.

I also know how the council works- if we were to get rid of the temporary one they will drag their heals providing the permanent solution.

The petition your pushing is asking for the current lane to be removed- that increases the risk posed to cyclists.

Some cyclists leaving the city are using the traffic lane rather criss-crossing to use the cycle lane.

Mc Love

And they are allowed to as a right, pedestrians and people who cycle on the road have a right to be there.

Insect Overlord

phog wrote: »

Some cyclists leaving the city are using the traffic lane rather criss-crossing to use the cycle lane.

And I'll keep doing it, too! :P

From my point of view, it's a 600 metre stretch from the roundabout to the lights at the junction. I can cover it in less than 90 seconds. It only costs a few seconds to let a cyclist get across the bridge, and usually it's easy to over-take them when the road widens again.

It ain't the great inconvenience that people are making it out to be. Most people pick up speed and drive out the rest of the Condell Road at 60-70+ km/h after that so they make the time back anyway.

phog

Mc Love wrote: »

And they are allowed to as a right, pedestrians and people who cycle on the road have a right to be there.

I never, ever said they didn't.

I'm pointing out that some people use it rather than criss-cross to the cylce lanes as they're a feck nuisance to entre/exit when cylcing outbound from the city

kilburn

Insect Overlord wrote:

It ain't the great inconvenience that people are making it out to be. Most people pick up speed and drive out the rest of the Condell Road at 60-70+ km/h after that so they make the time back anyway.

But in the 10 seconds you delay the motor tax paying entitled car driver he could be 200m closer to their destination!

It's like the people who just have to overtake you then stand on the brakes once ahead of you and turn left.