Limerick improvement projects

Bicyclette

cgcsb wrote: »

Are the last two posts serious? They're public contracts issued on a lowest cost basis. The region of origen of the contractor isn't considered and rightly so, this roots out gombeenism. You must like the healy raes hoovering up all the public money in kerry. Could you imagine if every construction contract in Dublin excluded culchie contractors. Half the non Dublin households in the country would go bankrupt.

Bike hire on a greenway is different to building a children's hospital. Local knowledge and local networking is far more important for something like a greenway. It shouldn't be a race to the bottom.

Not a fan of the Healy Rae type Paddywhackery. But in the case of tourism local is often best. The locals know about the environment, where to visit, where to stay etc.

Cookiemunster

breezy1985 wrote: »

Low cost basis I thought this was a cycle hire scheme where a shop hires out bikes. What cost is there to the council ?

The council is paying the provider to provide the service. They're not doing it out of the goodness of their heart. Therefore there is a cost to the council.

Bicyclette wrote: »

Bike hire on a greenway is different to building a children's hospital. Local knowledge and local networking is far more important for something like a greenway. It shouldn't be a race to the bottom.

If it goes out to tender under the public procurement process then it's treated exactly the same as a if it was building project. That's how the public procurement process works.

Granadino

Bicyclette wrote: »

A similar thing happened in Lough Boora in Co Offaly. A local guy had started it, created the business from start. Basically created the opening. And then he was turned down. The contract was given to a Dublin Company who had a prominent GAA player involved in it
https://extra.ie/2021/05/05/news/irish-news/lough-boora-boycott-business-bike-hire

I can't understand why local businesses can't get these gigs. Why does everything have to be DublinCentric. Its almost like colonialism all over again except this time the centre of power emanates from Dublin.

Wow. More to this story at all?

breezy1985

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The council is paying the provider to provide the service. They're not doing it out of the goodness of their heart. Therefore there is a cost to the council.
.

I assumed the council would just give a license/permission to someone who would then make profit from the rentals. Same as if a cafe or restaurant opened up.

Seems a lot easier than the council paying someone to run run it

Bass Reeves

Believe it or not the whole point of Rural development is..........Rural development. This was the whole point of Greenway projects and Bord na Mona trying to re-establish lost jobs.

If you go out to Italy or France it's seldom you see big local tourism projects ran by anybody but locals. The local Councils or Mayor's office will load the tender toward the local small business. Yes if a company wants to establish a waterpark or a similar large project that requires substantial investment they will accommodate them. But for small businesses like bike hire or park management and faculties the local always gets the tender loaded in his favour.

This is because the local mayor's office or council know the value of keeping business local. They recieve local taxes now in theory both businesses pay the same taxes. However the local small business owner is more likely to hire a local solicitor or accountant. If he need supplies for faculties management he has s more likely to buy them locally. He will spend and invest any profits locally as well.

It nothing to do with gombeenism but about local development

somespud

Am I missing something,this is not a contract to provide a service but a loan to develop the business my understanding of a loan is that it is paid back. The greenway itself was established as community based voluntary group until LCCC took over the project,and from reading into that they are complaining about the lack of input they can contribute to the project since the takeover.

Bicyclette

somespud wrote: »

Am I missing something,this is not a contract to provide a service but a loan to develop the business my understanding of a loan is that it is paid back. The greenway itself was established as community based voluntary group until LCCC took over the project,and from reading into that they are complaining about the lack of input they can contribute to the project since the takeover.

My understanding of the article is that Limerick Council are providing a large loan to a Dublin Company to develop bike hire rather than letting local businesses scale up.

Extract from the article:

"According to Cllr Scanlon, the council sought expressions of interest for such an operator earlier this year with a deadline of March 23.

A number of submissions were made, including locally based outfits, but nobody was selected.

A second round of expressions of interest began earlier this month with a closing date of May 13.

By the following day, Cllr Scanlon claims, the Dublin-based company was selected. “How can we do an expression of interest overnight?” he demanded. “I have concerns about that.” "

BoilerNooB

adaminho wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Limerick_Leader/status/1397101138449616903

So what they are doing here is decreasing the size of the park to allow for moving the road but also handing land over through CPO to the company that owns Arthur's Quay SC? As per the 2030 plan

Quite bizarre we should be protecting public space like this, not allowing it to shrink on the promise the tax building will be knocked eventually

breezy1985

BoilerNooB wrote: »

So what they are doing here is decreasing the size of the park to allow for moving the road but also handing land over through CPO to the company that owns Arthur's Quay SC? As per the 2030 plan

Quite bizarre we should be protecting public space like this, not allowing it to shrink on the promise the tax building will be knocked eventually

It would be better to move the road altogether on to a widened Patrick St. and have the new Arthur's Quay SC pedestrian on one side. That way you could have out facings shops/cafes on to the park

Cookiemunster

BoilerNooB wrote: »

So what they are doing here is decreasing the size of the park to allow for moving the road but also handing land over through CPO to the company that owns Arthur's Quay SC? As per the 2030 plan

Quite bizarre we should be protecting public space like this, not allowing it to shrink on the promise the tax building will be knocked eventually

No. If you actually read it properly, you'd know that Sarsfield house is to be demolished and replaced by parkland, allowing the road to be repositioned without losing any public space.

Limerick Leader wrote: »

Once the wrecking ball has moved on Sarsfield House, the R445 would be realigned, proposals show, alongside Arthur’s Quay park, in a move which will see the boardwalks up to Harvey’s Quay extended and upgraded.
The compensation for any loss of green space in the riverside park would be the fact more of this would be provided in place of the tax office, with the hope to create a “front garden” for the city.

I wish people would actually read things before going off on one.

Also the council wouldn't have to CPO land the already own to hand over to a developer. I'm not sure where you even got the idea that they were intending to hand over any land.

BoilerNooB

Cookiemunster wrote: »

No. If you actually read it properly, you'd know that Sarsfield house is to be demolished and replaced by parkland, allowing the road to be repositioned without losing any public space.


I wish people would actually read things before going off on one.

I did read it. I have three issues. Leaving the road there and moving it is pointless. Providing public land to private businesses and also the "promise" of knocking sarafield house given the track record of the council we know this will take years to happen (if at all) at the expense of very limited public amenity space in the city centre.

I wish people would read comments before jumping in to defend the council.

The council / L2030 had to CPO the tourist office land there was an article that this was their intention. Look at the 2030 plan clearly shows the expansion of Arthur's quay and also the recently signed MOU between Arthur's quay SC and L2030

Cookiemunster

breezy1985 wrote: »

It would be better to move the road altogether on to a widened Patrick St. and have the new Arthur's Quay SC pedestrian on one side. That way you could have out facings shops/cafes on to the park

Patrick St is part of the O'Connell St development from Micheal St to O'Connell St. It's definitely not going to be widened.

Widening any city center street for extra traffic is actually a terrible idea. It's the opposite that needs to be done.

breezy1985

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Patrick St is part of the O'Connell St development from Micheal St to O'Connell St. It's definitely not going to be widened.

Widening any city center street for extra traffic is actually a terrible idea. It's the opposite that needs to be done.

Well you end up with the same amount of road space you have now just in a different place. If I had my way there would be no roads at all in the centre but I was just thinking of options that might actually happen

Cookiemunster

BoilerNooB wrote: »

I did read it. I have three issues. Leaving the road there and moving it is pointless. Providing public land to private businesses

Where are you getting the idea that public land is to be provided to a private business? I've seen that nowhere and it definitely doesn't say it in the article.

BoilerNooB wrote: »

and also the "promise" of knocking sarafield house given the track record of the council we know this will take years to happen (if at all) at the expense of very limited public amenity space in the city centre.

The OPW (the actual owners of Sarsfield House) have committed to moving to the new offices in the Opera buildings as Sarsfield House is end of life. It will then be demolished. The OPW are not the council. It's well known that this will take years as it can't happen until the Opera buildings are complete and Revenue have moved. However if you actually read the article properly (or even the bit I reposted) you'd see that the plan is dependent on Sarsfield House being gone first.

BoilerNooB wrote: »

I wish people would read comments before jumping in to defend the council.

Pointing out where you're wrong is not defending the council.

BoilerNooB wrote: »

The council / L2030 had to CPO the tourist office land there was an article that this was their intention. Look at the 2030 plan clearly shows the expansion of Arthur's quay and also the recently signed MOU between Arthur's quay and L2030

They CPO'd it because it was derelict. They've been doing this all over the city and county. As I posted earlier, there was an article in July 2019 about the development of Arthurs Quay. Nothing more has been heard in nearly 2 years. I've not seen a single thing saying that anything has been signed between Limerick 2030 and the owners of Arthurs Quay, That's pure speculation on your part.

mdmix

Cookiemunster wrote: »

They CPO'd it because it was derelict. They've been doing this all over the city and county. As I posted earlier, there was an article in July 2019 about the development of Arthurs Quay. Nothing more has been heard in nearly 2 years. I've not seen a single thing saying that anything has been signed between Limerick 2030 and the owners of Arthurs Quay, That's pure speculation on your part.

There was a leader article which said the road was being moved to allow for re-development of AQSC (possibly the one below which is now paywalled). The original 2030 economic/spacial plan also showed drawings suggesting the shopping centre was to re-developed outwards.

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/435314/m-s-move-set-to-pave-the-way-for-400-new-jobs-in-limerick.html


The recent announcement has not explained why the road is being "re-configured".

Honestly, the whole limerick 2030 plan exists along the route from the north circular road to the councils office. I really would not be surprised if someone in the council came up with this idea this so that they could drive closer to the river on their morning commute.

mdmix

mdmix wrote: »

There was a leader article which said the road was being moved to allow for re-development of AQSC (possibly the one below which is now paywalled). The original 2030 economic/spacial plan also showed drawings suggesting the shopping centre was to re-developed outwards.

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/435314/m-s-move-set-to-pave-the-way-for-400-new-jobs-in-limerick.html


The recent announcement has not explained why the road is being "re-configured".

Honestly, the whole limerick 2030 plan exists along the route from the north circular road to the councils office. I really would not be surprised if someone in the council came up with this idea this so that they could drive closer to the river on their morning commute.

Yeah, iirc, the Leader were cheerleading that the owners of Arthur's Quay SC would get some of Arthur's Quay Park in exchange for a "town square" on land between the current shopping centre and Burger King. Quite why we should be giving river frontage to a private company is never really clear, though iirc, the article didn't make it clear how much of the park we're expected to give away anyhow.

Course, rather than lose any park, why not knock Sarsfield House and make the park, such as it is, much bigger? Would be an amazing amenity to have such a large park in the very heart of the city.

(I can see the logic behind a town square tbh, so I'm not dismissing the plan out of hand, but the Council, the owners of Arthur's Quay SC and the Leader could publish the plans).

BoilerNooB

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Where are you getting the idea that public land is to be provided to a private business? I've seen that nowhere and it definitely doesn't say it in the article.


The OPW (the actual owners of Sarsfield House) have committed to moving to the new offices in the Opera buildings as Sarsfield House is end of life. It will then be demolished. The OPW are not the council. It's well known that this will take years as it can't happen until the Opera buildings are complete and Revenue have moved. However if you actually read the article properly (or even the bit I reposted) you'd see that the plan is dependent on Sarsfield House being gone first.


Pointing out where you're wrong is not defending the council.


They CPO'd it because it was derelict. They've been doing this all over the city and county. As I posted earlier, there was an article in July 2019 about the development of Arthurs Quay. Nothing more has been heard in nearly 2 years. I've not seen a single thing saying that anything has been signed between Limerick 2030 and the owners of Arthurs Quay, That's pure speculation on your part.

It was mentioned in a number of articles, meetings and even the Limerick 2030 plan that Arthur's quay shopping centre is to be expanded outwards. Early plans suggested Arthur's quay shopping centre taking over the tourist office unit as a coffee shop.

I wouldn't expect you to see that anything has been signed between Arthur's Quay and L2030 because it hasn't been announced publically as far as I know. However, from an FOI an NDA was signed between the two in November 2020 for the development of Arthur's quay shopping centre. Fell free to submit your own FOI if you want to get the full thread between the two.

Cookiemunster

Construction of the footpath buildouts has begun.
https://twitter.com/crewbrewco/status/1397514934204964867

CosmicFool

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Construction of the footpath buildouts has begun.
https://twitter.com/crewbrewco/status/1397514934204964867

Fantastic to see

mdmix

the limerick economic monitor for may is out. Interesting to hear John Moran describe it on newstalk as "positive spin of figures that are broadly in line with the national average".

its a useful report as it publishes with economic figures we might not have access to otherwise, but one example of spin is conflating rising house prices as a sign of rising demand - when in actual fact its due to low supply.

https://www.limerick.ie/sites/default/files/media/documents/2021-05/limerick-economic-monitor-may-2021.pdf

Cookiemunster

somespud wrote: »

Don't know if this has been covered elsewhere but if its true what I'm reading it absolutely stinks, to grant this to a Dublin firm over established local businesses is totaly wrong.
https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/news/635392/questions-emerge-over-selection-of-dublin-based-company-for-bike-hire-scheme-on-limerick-greenway.html?fbclid=IwAR1lBOKMvq_Mpuq3tJlxDHaSB_jHN4989X5KrsjDeDsMlye6H8Gt7rf70q0

breezy1985 wrote: »

Local business applied but we're rejected so it would be interesting to see the report as to why this Dublin one was deemed to be a better choice. Lack of transparency it seems as usual

There's a very long statement on this from the council here

Some snippets.

.....it was evident that a large number of patrons and, in particular, families, only wish to cycle all or part of a greenway ‘one-way’ and then return to their start point by Shuttle bus.
This requires at least one operator of scale to have bike hire and shuttle bus pick up points at multiple locations along the route.
Currently the Limerick Greenway has a very limited bike hire service and no shuttle bus service......

......The Council has taken a proactive approach in relation to bike hire/ shuttle bus service in order to ensure the Limerick Greenway reaches its potential as quickly as possible.
Therefore, in order to:

(a) attract an operator of scale to provide bike hire and shuttle bus service and
(b) provide a fair mechanism to determine requests from bike hire companies to operate from Council owned property on the greenway,

the Council initiated an open and publicly advertised Expression of Interest (EOI) process for interested parties.
As part of the terms and conditions of the EOI process, applicants were afforded the opportunity to request from the Council a working capital loan to assist in the set up and provision of this service......

.......Following the assessment of applications under the EOI process, EI Travel Group/ Lazy Bike Tours were deemed the successful applicant......

Following the announcement, there has been a large amount of comment, mainly on social media, and most of it incorrect.
It is extremely important therefore that Limerick City and County Council addresses the mis-information and not let these ill-informed comments ruin the huge potential that the Limerick Greenway has to transform tourism in Limerick.

• EI Travel/ Lazy Bike Tours does not have exclusive rights to bike hire and shuttlebus service on the Limerick Greenway. No company has now or will in the future have exclusive rights to provide a bike hire/ shuttle bus service
• The conclusion of this process does not mean other operators, either incumbent or potential, cannot continue/ enter to offer their service on the Limerick Greenway
• All existing and new bike hire operators can be advertised on Council-owned websites LimerickGreenway.ie and Limerick.ie free of charge and are encouraged to do so
• All operators will benefit from the wider marketing and promotion of the Limerick Greenway which will not promote any individual bike hire business
• Business plans in the EOI process were judged on their merit and awarded points accordingly. Detailed feedback was given when requested and all efforts were made to explain the marking to the applicants
• The owner of successful applicant EI Travel Group/ Lazy Bike Tours is not related to Minister for Transport, Mr Eamon Ryan, TD, despite incorrect commentary to this effect on social media
• The evaluation and awarding process was fair, open and transparent. Limerick City and County Council must have open competition for all regardless of where their existing business is based. Limerick firms are afforded the same opportunity in other parts of Ireland
• The provision of the Working Capital Loan to support the business was open to all the applicants to apply for as part of the process and was brought before a full meeting of Limerick City and County Council for approval as required under legislation
• The €300,000 working capital loan approved in principle by the Council is not a grant. It is a loan and is fully repayable to Limerick City and County Council with appropriate security provided by the applicant. The Council has previously used these powers to support initiatives in Limerick City
• Limerick City and County Council will at all times welcome and promote the set-up of new companies in Limerick and the creation of local jobs by these companies

sioda

That build out in front of crew on Thomas street looks well glad to see no perspex this time

breezy1985

sioda wrote: »

That build out in front of crew on Thomas street looks well glad to see no perspex this time

The Canteen one was done really well too. I assume not much effort was put into the O'Connell St. one as it won't be there long

Poxyshamrock

breezy1985 wrote: »

The Canteen one was done really well too. I assume not much effort was put into the O'Connell St. one as it won't be there long

Nah, I’d say if a fuss wasn’t made about the absolute state of it the same type would have been installed outside Canteen.

breezy1985

Poxyshamrock wrote: »

Nah, I’d say if a fuss wasn’t made about the absolute state of it the same type would have been installed outside Canteen.

I thought Canteen was the first one. Probably wrong though I wasn't really paying too much attention

mdmix

breezy1985 wrote: »

The Canteen one was done really well too. I assume not much effort was put into the O'Connell St. one as it won't be there long

The one on oconnell street was somewhere in the region of 150-200k, so they did put a lot of effort into it. I'm open to correction, but the speed limit is 50km per hour on oconnell street, and with 2 lanes of traffic, the parklet was built like that to protect from cars (noise, pollution and physical contact).

The other parklets are in lower traffic areas, a nice demonstration of what can happen when you don't fully sacrifice a street for traffic.

breezy1985

mdmix wrote: »

The one on oconnell street was somewhere in the region of 150-200k, so they did put a lot of effort into it. I'm open to correction, but the speed limit is 50km per hour on oconnell street, and with 2 lanes of traffic, the parklet was built like that to protect from cars (noise, pollution and physical contact).

The other parklets are in lower traffic areas, a nice demonstration of what can happen when you don't fully sacrifice a street for traffic.

I heard it was noise related as well but if it was permanent you could have greenery hiding the barriers

mart 23

Has the work on the Health Center to be built beside the South Court Hotel ever start ?

sioda

I see the house down from the Curragower was pulled down this morning, the plans for the new development there are so bland. Hate seeing repairable buildings pulled down for more drab modern crap

pigtown

The council have two Part 8 applications up for public consultation:
The proposed pergolas to facilitate outdoor dining on Bedford Row and Thomas Street - nice idea but they're proposing to remove the limestone cubes from the street in the process thus greatly reducing the number of public seats in the city

and an upgrade of the junction of the Golf links Road and Old Ballysimon Road which is badly needed and includes an upgrade to cycle paths and footpaths