Limerick improvement projects

adaminho

https://twitter.com/JLeddin/status/1297940355774586880

Berty

It will remain for a week before the people using that section start to complain then the councillors will be out against it.

Remember there are no schools now, lots of people heading to those schools won't expect it to be so bad, some might not even have been out that way in months to see the temporary changes.

The Ennis road is about to get a lot busier in a few weeks as people learn to avoid the condell road and the bridge.

TPMP

Ridiculous. Traffic will be gridlock. Even the postmen don't use those lanes.

mgbgt1978

adaminho wrote: »

https://twitter.com/JLeddin/status/1297940355774586880

First off Joe's so excited about this he couldn't be ar$ed to get a current picture, and just used something he found on the net from the day the Bike lane was being installed.
Secondly, despite what the few anti-car folk on here may think, this will not encourage anybody extra to cycle to School/Work and will only succeed in causing even more traffic chaos during rush-hour.

colm_mcm

It’s anti-motorist rather than pro-cyclist.

I’d have no major issue with a cycle lane on either side of the bridge (aside from it adding ages to my morning commute by combining dock road and city traffic in one lane) but the current setup is crazy.

Brian Lighthouse

I hope the government will act swiftly when called upon by school principles to provide drying rooms for all the wet gear from the surge in cyclists leaving the northside to schools in the southside.
I also hope that Flahavan's Progress Oatlets will pump up production to cater for the winter demand from Limerick schoolchildren.

Joking aside, I really really hope this lane will be used, If it's not, oooh, the winter discussions could become very entertaining indeed.

martyc5674

colm_mcm wrote: »

It’s anti-motorist rather than pro-cyclist.

It’s only anti motorist if you chose to see it that way.
There are 10 other lanes for motorised traffic across the river- 1 is removed for sustainable transport and it’s anti motorist.

We need to move towards sustainable transport and the bridges across the river have until now been a major hinderance moving this way, if this lane was reversed it would be hard to say we are taking climate/health/public realm seriously. We must move in this direction, we can’t continue going the way we’re going for so many reasons.
We have looked at solving traffic problems in the past by providing solutions to make it move faster,increase volumes etc, that can no longer be the approach. We must look at the bigger picture- environment- public health- mental well being etc and strike a balance, they are all of equal importance and can no longer go ignored.

Gary Owen

We must look at the bigger picture- environment- public health- mental well being etc ...

See what way your mental health will be like when it will take an hour
to come in the condell road .

TPMP

martyc5674 wrote: »

It’s only anti motorist if you chose to see it that way.
There are 10 other lanes for motorised traffic across the river- 1 is removed for sustainable transport and it’s anti motorist.

We need to move towards sustainable transport and the bridges across the river have until now been a major hinderance moving this way, if this lane was reversed it would be hard to say we are taking climate/health/public realm seriously. We must move in this direction, we can’t continue going the way we’re going for so many reasons.
We have looked at solving traffic problems in the past by providing solutions to make it move faster,increase volumes etc, that can no longer be the approach. We must look at the bigger picture- environment- public health- mental well being etc and strike a balance, they are all of equal importance and can no longer go ignored.

Firstly, it's a cop out to say there are 10 "other" lanes for traffic to use. There isn't. Minus the tunnel (as this only serves as a bypass to the city) there are only 3 lanes going into the city from the northside. This is not enough, as any commuter will understand.

If the council were really invested in reducing the number of cars travelling into the city, they would set up new bus routes, make them more frequent, build park and ride systems on the main arteries of the city etc. Painting a new cycle lane on one of the busiest bridges is as usual the cheapest possible option and of course has little effect on actually solving the issue.

martyc5674

TPMP wrote: »

Firstly, it's a cop out to say there are 10 "other" lanes for traffic to use. There isn't. Minus the tunnel (as this only serves as a bypass to the city) there are only 3 lanes going into the city from the northside. This is not enough, as any commuter will understand.

If the council were really invested in reducing the number of cars travelling into the city, they would set up new bus routes, make them more frequent, build park and ride systems on the main arteries of the city etc. Painting a new cycle lane on one of the busiest bridges is as usual the cheapest possible option and of course has little effect on actually solving the issue.

How is it a cop out- there are 10 other lanes across the river from the north side.
There is 1 all the way in the Condell road- there were only ever 2 for the short section of the bridge, the bridge isn’t the issue, it’s all the people avoiding the toll.
Have you seen the traffic on the dock road at rush hour?- that’s what’s causing the tailback in the bridge, not the cyclists. If you want to avoid it take the tunnel too- it’s never choked.

Your right the cycle lane is cheap- cycling lanes are the cheapest way to shift towards sustainable transport, it should have been done years ago it’s so cheap, what stopped it?- car dependence mentality. But finally there’s a glimmer of hope we are moving in the right direction. But we need a lot more.

martyc5674

Gary Owen wrote: »

We must look at the bigger picture- environment- public health- mental well being etc ...

See what way your mental health will be like when it will take an hour
to come in the condell road .

So taking an hour to come in the Condell road will be the cycle lanes fault- not all the toll dodgers? not that I agree with toll, but that’s the reality people are dodging it.

And my mental health will be fine as I’ll be on my bike

iamafoodie

My mother lives on that side of town and is dreading when schools go back.
I hope she's wrong!!

bazz26

Not everyone using the Condell road is avoiding the toll. If you think people would rather be sitting in traffic with the engine running for an hour wasting more fuel than the price of the toll then your mistaken. The bridge simply isn't designed for what is currently being done with it long term. It's too narrow for cycle lanes/vehicle lanes/foot paths both ways especially at peak times no matter what lip service is done to appease current populous thinking. It could be modified to accommodate this but it would cost money, however there is no quick or cheap fix for Ireland's transport problems.

Berty

I see the developer has been given the go ahead on the Northside for student accommadation:

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/568512/go-ahead-given-for-limerick-student-complex.html

Madness ensues then on their FB comments. So far I've had bingo with the following being mentioned, single mothers, young families, older people and the homeless, why isn't the developer building properties for them? It's a bit early so far but here's expecting the "where will I illegaly park now dropping my kids off for school?" answer might be across the road in Thomond Park like most of the other car driving parents.

You'd swear the developer was paid by the council by the way people are going on.

martyc5674

bazz26 wrote: »

Not everyone using the Condell road is avoiding the toll. If you think people would rather be sitting in traffic with the engine running for an hour wasting more fuel than the price of the toll then your mistaken. The bridge simply isn't designed for what is currently being done with it long term. It's too narrow for cycle lanes/vehicle lanes/foot paths both ways especially at peak times no matter what lip service is done to appease current populous thinking. It could be modified to accommodate this but it would cost money, however there is no quick or cheap fix for Ireland's transport problems.

This country Is full of people who’d rather sit in their cars than take any other form of transport. I see it every day.

Cookiemunster

Berty wrote: »

I see the developer has been given the go ahead on the Northside for student accommadation:

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/568512/go-ahead-given-for-limerick-student-complex.html

Madness ensues then on their FB comments. So far I've had bingo with the following being mentioned, single mothers, young families, older people and the homeless, why isn't the developer building properties for them? It's a bit early so far but here's expecting the "where will I illegaly park now dropping my kids off for school?" answer might be across the road in Thomond Park like most of the other car driving parents.

You'd swear the developer was paid by the council by the way people are going on.

The best are the ones saying that it's too big and out of place for the location, who don't seem at all bothered by the huge 50m tall stadium at the top of the hill not 100m away from Hassetts. NIMBYs one and all.

orangeocelot

Disappointing that the SCR one way system won't be retained. Nothing beats long lines of traffic backed up right outside your front door...

source

orangeocelot wrote: »

Disappointing that the SCR one way system won't be retained. Nothing beats long lines of traffic backed up right outside your front door...

It's not one way though, you can still drive both directions along the length of the road from New Street to the Ballinacurra end, you just can't access it from the Ballinacurra end. I'm living on SCR, and can confidently say that a massive amount of traffic joining SCR each morning is coming via New St and Ashbourne Avenue, so even if the block remained at the Ballinacurra end, the traffic will still be crazy on SCR due to the number of schools along the stretch from New St to Quinn St.

colm_mcm

martyc5674 wrote: »

It’s only anti motorist if you chose to see it that way.
There are 10 other lanes for motorised traffic across the river- 1 is removed for sustainable transport and it’s anti motorist.

We need to move towards sustainable transport and the bridges across the river have until now been a major hinderance moving this way, if this lane was reversed it would be hard to say we are taking climate/health/public realm seriously. We must move in this direction, we can’t continue going the way we’re going for so many reasons.
We have looked at solving traffic problems in the past by providing solutions to make it move faster,increase volumes etc, that can no longer be the approach. We must look at the bigger picture- environment- public health- mental well being etc and strike a balance, they are all of equal importance and can no longer go ignored.

The minuscule number of cyclists using this new amazing system as it was supposed to be used is testament to its stupidity.

I agree the city needs to be improved, but this is a half-assed vanity project and doesn’t serve anyone apart from the anti-motorist crowd.
Properly done cycle lanes along routes that people actually use to get in and out of and around town are great, but the recent ‘upgrades’ are farcical

source

martyc5674 wrote: »

How is it a cop out- there are 10 other lanes across the river from the north side.
There is 1 all the way in the Condell road- there were only ever 2 for the short section of the bridge, the bridge isn’t the issue, it’s all the people avoiding the toll.
Have you seen the traffic on the dock road at rush hour?- that’s what’s causing the tailback in the bridge, not the cyclists. If you want to avoid it take the tunnel too- it’s never choked.

Your right the cycle lane is cheap- cycling lanes are the cheapest way to shift towards sustainable transport, it should have been done years ago it’s so cheap, what stopped it?- car dependence mentality. But finally there’s a glimmer of hope we are moving in the right direction. But we need a lot more.

A couple of points, there are (including the tunnel) 5 lanes inbound to the city from the North Side, and 5 lanes outbound. Your insistence that there are 10 lanes from the Northside is disingenuous. There are certainly 10 lanes, but not 10 lanes inbound.

I have said on this very thread a number of times, and I will say it again now. I am all for cycle lanes, bus lanes and increased public transport. I am all for decreasing the use of private motor vehicles, and increasing the use of public transport in Limerick. However, this must be done in a sensible way. You will not entice people out of their cars with a half assed effort.

Before people will move you need to provide the correct infrastructure to allow them to do so, doing otherwise will only increase traffic and decrease peoples willingness to accept the alternatives as they will be seen as a hindrence.

There is absolutely no point in simply putting half thought out cycle lanes that don't properly connect up with an overall cycle network on the road. All this does is increase traffic because people still won't be able to take the entire or majority of their journey by safe cycle lanes. They'll stick to their cars.

To properly connect up the city to safe cycle lanes, the council needs to chose a main route to the city, and put a safe segregated cycle lane the entire length of the route. Then another, and another, until all the routes to the city are covered. That is the correct way to do this, not retaining a half assed temporary lane because "it's better than nothing".

mgbgt1978

martyc5674 wrote: »

How is it a cop out- there are 10 other lanes across the river from the north side.
There is 1 all the way in the Condell road- there were only ever 2 for the short section of the bridge, the bridge isn’t the issue, it’s all the people avoiding the toll.

Very conveniently forgetting that Lower Shelbourne Road feeds onto Condell Road. In fact, the traffic light sequence favours that road.

martyc5674

source wrote: »

A couple of points, there are (including the tunnel) 5 lanes inbound to the city from the North Side, and 5 lanes outbound. Your insistence that there are 10 lanes from the Northside is disingenuous. There are certainly 10 lanes, but not 10 lanes inbound.

I have said on this very thread a number of times, and I will say it again now. I am all for cycle lanes, bus lanes and increased public transport. I am all for decreasing the use of private motor vehicles, and increasing the use of public transport in Limerick. However, this must be done in a sensible way. You will not entice people out of their cars with a half assed effort.

Before people will move you need to provide the correct infrastructure to allow them to do so, doing otherwise will only increase traffic and decrease peoples willingness to accept the alternatives as they will be seen as a hindrence.

There is absolutely no point in simply putting half thought out cycle lanes that don't properly connect up with an overall cycle network on the road. All this does is increase traffic because people still won't be able to take the entire or majority of their journey by safe cycle lanes. They'll stick to their cars.

To properly connect up the city to safe cycle lanes, the council needs to chose a main route to the city, and put a safe segregated cycle lane the entire length of the route. Then another, and another, until all the routes to the city are covered. That is the correct way to do this, not retaining a half assed temporary lane because "it's better than nothing".

I agree- the lanes are not Ideal but they are a starting point, they are poorly connected etc etc, but some people on here want them reversed.
Proper infrastructure wont appear overnight and will take getting used to.

And there are 10 lanes across the river dedicated to motor traffic- there were 11 now there are 10. i never said 10 inbound, im just using the number to highlight the current imbalance.

sioda

As someone who doesn't own a car and cycles or walks most of the time keeping that cycle lane in its current format is at best ridiculous and at worst a death trap.

The bridge can sustain a cycle lane on both sides if they are willing to sacrifice they space which seems they are. But I expect stupidity from the council tbh.

martyc5674

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Very conveniently forgetting that Lower Shelbourne Road feeds onto Condell Road. In fact, the traffic light sequence favours that road.

Yes the lights regulate between condell road and lower shelbourne.
Nothing has changed here- both roads cannot access the bridge @ the same time, so why the need for 2 lanes inbound??
If traffic is built up it is because of the dock road being overused in preference of the tunnel.
Usually as you get closer to a built up area the number of lanes decrease not increase.

martyc5674

sioda wrote: »

As someone who doesn't own a car and cycles or walks most of the time keeping that cycle lane in its current format is at best ridiculous and at worst a death trap.

The bridge can sustain a cycle lane on both sides if they are willing to sacrifice they space which seems they are. But I expect stupidity from the council tbh.

The permanent solution wont happen for years, the temporary one is a hell of a lot better than nothing.
At least now kids can cycle over the bridge without fear of being run over.

source

martyc5674 wrote: »

I agree- the lanes are not Ideal but they are a starting point, they are poorly connected etc etc, but some people on here want them reversed.
Proper infrastructure wont appear overnight and will take getting used to.

And there are 10 lanes across the river dedicated to motor traffic- there were 11 now there are 10. i never said 10 inbound, im just using the number to highlight the current imbalance.

You specifically said 10 "from" the Northside, implying there were 10 lanes of traffic moving from the Northside to the City Centre. That's what you wrote, and that's how it was read by more than just me.

I don't agree that what is there is a start, it's pointless and unsafe except for a very limited subset of users. It only suits those going from the city to the Shelbourne Road junction, and vice versa. It also decided change how we in Ireland approach road usage by making it pass on the left, rather than pass on the right which we use in every other context of road design. This results in cyclists crossing each other at the entrance/exit to the lane.

It was a poorly executed attempt, but was just about sufficient as the temporary measure it was designed to be.

I don't think we should retain it just because it's currently there, there needs to be a serious discussion surrounding sustainable transport in the city, but hanging on to poor infrustracture for the sake of having something isn't the way about it.

Look, I understand the desire not to let go of it. I just think that the traffic will be so bad come next week that the council will remove it and consider bike lanes a bad idea overall. Using the increased traffic as a stick to beat the concept with. I would rather hand back the lanes and point to how good it was to have that facility when seeking a more permanent solution.

martyc5674

source wrote: »

You specifically said 10 "from" the Northside, implying there were 10 lanes of traffic moving from the Northside to the City Centre. That's what you wrote, and that's how it was read by more than just me.

I don't agree that what is there is a start, it's pointless and unsafe except for a very limited subset of users. It only suits those going from the city to the Shelbourne Road junction, and vice versa. It also decided change how we in Ireland approach road usage by making it pass on the left, rather than pass on the right which we use in every other context of road design. This results in cyclists crossing each other at the entrance/exit to the lane.

It was a poorly executed attempt, but was just about sufficient as the temporary measure it was designed to be.

I don't think we should retain it just because it's currently there, there needs to be a serious discussion surrounding sustainable transport in the city, but hanging on to poor infrustracture for the sake of having something isn't the way about it.

Look, I understand the desire not to let go of it. I just think that the traffic will be so bad come next week that the council will remove it and consider bike lanes a bad idea overall. Using the increased traffic as a stick to beat the concept with. I would rather hand back the lanes and point to how good it was to have that facility when seeking a more permanent solution.

Ok I see how you read it that way- that wasn’t the intent. I should have said 10 lanes across the river.
Nothing is going to happen overnight, the discussions are happening and it will take years to do it right. I don’t want to see any deaths in the meantime. I think people are overreacting thinking there will be traffic mayhem. And if there is mayhem- it’s not the fault of removing that lane for vehicular access.

martyc5674

Just to address the "We should do it right from the start" opinions with some context.
I agree it should be done right from the start, but that's not going to happen with the current executive.

In 2015 the council had a study done (that they paid handsomely for etc) that advised the needs for a proper cycle lane to traverse the river.(and a whole host of other stuff that they never did)
The did nothing- SFA - it took a pandemic and basically being embarrassed into providing some infrastructure, they did not willingly provide this, this is why we have to keep it until it is replaced with something better.

Mc Love

Eaxactly - they were one of the worst city councils during the pandemic, far behind the other cities and even some smaller towns

TPMP

martyc5674 wrote: »

I think people are overreacting thinking there will be traffic mayhem. And if there is mayhem- it’s not the fault of removing that lane for vehicular access.

As someone who commutes into Limerick every day from the Clare side, I think you're drastically undermining the importance of that second inbound lane on the Shannon bridge. There's no over reacting. I respect your opinion though and the next few weeks will tell a lot. I'd love to be proven wrong.