Has traffic around Limerick gotten worse recently?

dr.fuzzenstein

mitresize5 wrote: »

its the economy innit

More people in work, more people on the road at rush hour

Work in Castletroy myself and the difference from now and 12/18 months ago is huge

I come in from Ennis direction to go to Plassey for 8am.
In the mornings the tunnel actually works out about the same, because once you go off the M7 for the Newport Roundabout, you will sit in traffic for quite some time. So I mostly go via King John's Castle, Clare Street/Dublin Road and past UL. Timewise very little difference and I will not throw nearly €4 per day down the gullet of the operators of that very excellent facility. If you got to make time in the evenings, it is great to have it. I think it's one of the best things for Limerick traffic ever.
I head out in the evening, sometimes via the tunnel, but most times via town or going off the M7 for the Dock Road. Been doing this since 2010, first I worked in Annacotty and since 2012 in Plassey.
I think traffic has increased a little bit, but not massively so. I do notice it in the evenings, before I used to cut through town, but now I would largely avoid it, because the city center is definitely getting busier.
I remember the bad old days in the early 2000's, before the tunnel and before the motorway all the way. I think my record for Caherdavin to UL, to be in for 9 AM was over one hour.
Anyone remember the traffic from the Ennis road to cross the river to go to town? It was eat your sh*t mental. The queue would start way before the Coonagh Roundabout and would go all the way across the river, up William Street, via the Castle was not much better and even Condell Road was a fool's errand.
Those were the days when you could plan nearly 1. 1/2 hours to reach the other side of the city from the Coonagh roundabout if you hit rush hour.
Limerick has improved beyond all recognition traffic wise from what it was in the 90's/early 2000's.

+1 on the Galway traffic. Who designs the road system there? A senile baboon? I would only work there if I earned enough money to commute via helicopter. Dublin I gave up on in 1996. I fear it has not improved with age.

dave 27

I actually think Limerick is blessed with its layout, gridded centre with relatively wide streets, completely bypassed with motorway and tunnel and good roads layout, comparing to the other cities around the country I think Limericks infrastructure means traffic is reduced

I would say tho that ever since the tunnel was built I always felt they put more traffic lights in and around the city to make it more of a hinderance so you use the tunnel instead but i may be wrong!

marno21

dave 27 wrote: »

I actually think Limerick is blessed with its layout, gridded centre with relatively wide streets, completely bypassed with motorway and tunnel and good roads layout, comparing to the other cities around the country I think Limericks infrastructure means traffic is reduced

I would say tho that ever since the tunnel was built I always felt they put more traffic lights in and around the city to make it more of a hinderance so you use the tunnel instead but i may be wrong!

They're right too. While I don't agree with the policy of tolling ringroads and bypasses with the tunnel built the city council should be doing everything possible to remove all non essential traffic from the city centre. Having an empty tunnel and a gridlocked city is foolish, although the tunnel (and indeed ringroad) would be ideal if it had proper interchanges rather than the mess that is the Dock Road interchange, the Ballysimon interchange, Finnegan's roundabout and lack of M20/M7 -> city centre at Rossbrien.

Dublin Road is surely quieter these days with UL being on holidays?

Cookiemunster

marno21 wrote: »

They're right too. While I don't agree with the policy of tolling ringroads and bypasses with the tunnel built the city council should be doing everything possible to remove all non essential traffic from the city centre. Having an empty tunnel and a gridlocked city is foolish, although the tunnel (and indeed ringroad) would be ideal if it had proper interchanges rather than the mess that is the Dock Road interchange, the Ballysimon interchange, Finnegan's roundabout and lack of M20/M7 -> city centre at Rossbrien.

Dublin Road is surely quieter these days with UL being on holidays?

I'm curious to know what you think is wrong with the Dock Rd and Finnegans junctions. They're perfectly adequete for the amount of traffic they handle. Personally I'm happy that the M20/M7 traffic can't get off at Rosbrien as the traffic would be entering a residential area near two primary schools. The traffic in the area is heavy enough already.

dr.fuzzenstein

Cookiemunster wrote: »

I'm curious to know what you think is wrong with the Dock Rd and Finnegans junctions. They're perfectly adequete for the amount of traffic they handle. Personally I'm happy that the M20/M7 traffic can't get off at Rosbrien as the traffic would be entering a residential area near two primary schools. The traffic in the area is heavy enough already.

Personally I think the Dock Road could definitely be improved. Far too many lights and junctions (probably not much can be done about that) and the two lane layout that goes back to one lane at the big Topaz station is causing more delays and chaos than it's worth. Everyone knows The Irish Cannot Merge, sorry, but statement and capitalisation fully justified.
If two lanes merge in Germany, both lanes will approach the point of merge and then merge in a one-two zipper fashion.
In Ireland, both lanes will merge 800 meters before the merge point, creating a massive tailback. Some people will drive past, while others try to block them. There will always be some people who drive even past the point of merging and then try to bully their way in. This will lead to arguments, beeping, flashing and the odd crash.
So any situation were 2 lanes merge should be avoided at all costs in Ireland, since it cannot work and will never work in this country.
Anyone disagreeing, go down the Dock Road and see it in action.

dunworth1

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Personally I think the Dock Road could definitely be improved. Far too many lights and junctions (probably not much can be done about that) and the two lane layout that goes back to one lane at the big Topaz station is causing more delays and chaos than it's worth. Everyone knows The Irish Cannot Merge, sorry, but statement and capitalisation fully justified.
If two lanes merge in Germany, both lanes will approach the point of merge and then merge in a one-two zipper fashion.
In Ireland, both lanes will merge 800 meters before the merge point, creating a massive tailback. Some people will drive past, while others try to block them. There will always be some people who drive even past the point of merging and then try to bully their way in. This will lead to arguments, beeping, flashing and the odd crash.
So any situation were 2 lanes merge should be avoided at all costs in Ireland, since it cannot work and will never work in this country.
Anyone disagreeing, go down the Dock Road and see it in action.

couldn't agree more that lane needs to be removed
i don't see the point of it there anyway.

i also think the toll for the tunnel should be reduced specifically for trucks
remober how quiet it got when they did the free week

Cookiemunster

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Personally I think the Dock Road could definitely be improved. Far too many lights and junctions (probably not much can be done about that) and the two lane layout that goes back to one lane at the big Topaz station is causing more delays and chaos than it's worth. Everyone knows The Irish Cannot Merge, sorry, but statement and capitalisation fully justified.
If two lanes merge in Germany, both lanes will approach the point of merge and then merge in a one-two zipper fashion.
In Ireland, both lanes will merge 800 meters before the merge point, creating a massive tailback. Some people will drive past, while others try to block them. There will always be some people who drive even past the point of merging and then try to bully their way in. This will lead to arguments, beeping, flashing and the odd crash.
So any situation were 2 lanes merge should be avoided at all costs in Ireland, since it cannot work and will never work in this country.
Anyone disagreeing, go down the Dock Road and see it in action.

All that may be true, but it has little to do with junction 2 on the N18 which I was talking about.

dr.fuzzenstein

dunworth1 wrote: »

couldn't agree more that lane needs to be removed
i don't see the point of it there anyway.

i also think the toll for the tunnel should be reduced specifically for trucks
remober how quiet it got when they did the free week

Would be nice, the problem is the idiotic deal done for the tunnel operator.
They were guaranteed x amount of traffic to pass through and if it was less, the government would pay the difference.
So they can charge what they want and if nobody uses their tunnel just kick back, relax and watch the money roll in.
Imagine if you bought a pub and the previous owner says "I GUARANTEE 2000 pints will be sold here every night and if it's less, I pay for the difference!"
Wouldn't you charge €10 per pint and just take it easy from here on in? You have guaranteed income.
Whoever did that deal should be shot. Who the FCUK does such a deal?
Anyone who buys a business is told "Well, good luck, if you fcuk it up, it's not my problem".

FYP:
http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/business/business-news/astounding-costs-of-limerick-tunnel-guarantee-1-5361997
http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/business/business-news/limerick-tunnel-boss-rules-out-toll-reduction-1-5966884

You can be absolutely sure the tunnel operators have hired some very clever accountants to show year after year "Oh yeah, sorry there bud, yeah, massive loss again, would you believe it, we just can't seem to get a break at all, anyway, hand over more money".

dr.fuzzenstein

Cookiemunster wrote: »

All that may be true, but it has little to do with junction 2 on the N18 which I was talking about.

Nothing wrong with that.

mitresize5

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Would be nice, the problem is the idiotic deal done for the tunnel operator.

.

that there is the problem with your post.

The tunnel operator is actually the partial tunnel owner i.e. the business that borrowed half a billion euro to build a critical piece of public infrastructure that should have been financed from central funds when the country was awash with money.

Why would you expect any private operator to build and finance any piece of public infrastructure if they weren't going to get a return. The fee they get every year in the form of tolls and anything supplementary from the government is a Minimum Annual Guarantee which is the bed rock of all projects (not just civil infrastructure) financed this way

http://www.allbusiness.com/the-minimum-guarantee-a-fundemental-feature-of-product-licensing-2-8518280-1.html

This has not surprisingly been spun by politicians to paint the company that designed built and financed the tunnel into the bad guy here when in fact the tunnel should never have been built if the traffic volumes weren't going to be there, or, financed by the government like the Jack Lynch tunnel.

Mc Love

Cookiemunster wrote: »

I'm curious to know what you think is wrong with the Dock Rd and Finnegans junctions. They're perfectly adequete for the amount of traffic they handle. Personally I'm happy that the M20/M7 traffic can't get off at Rosbrien as the traffic would be entering a residential area near two primary schools. The traffic in the area is heavy enough already.

They really messed up that junction and could have possibly done something like they have with the M50 in Dublin with a roundabout loop over the M7/N18 so that motorists coming from M20 could go to the city or the M7 or on the N18.

It's such a pain now having to exit the M20 at Dooradoyle to go by Rosbrien to get into town.

dunworth1

mitresize5 wrote: »

This has not surprisingly been spun by politicians to paint the company that designed built and financed the tunnel into the bad guy here when in fact the tunnel should never have been built if the traffic volumes weren't going to be there, or, financed by the government like the Jack Lynch tunnel.

traffic volumes would be there if the price was right.

when they trialed the free week for trucks the increase was 70%
so if they were to reduce the price to a more reasonable figure a lot more would use it.

i'm not going to pay 1.90 x2 a day just to save a few minutes of travel time
that's almost 20 euro a week. if it was 1 euro i'd be more inclined to use the tunnel

Cookiemunster

Mc Love wrote: »

They really messed up that junction and could have possibly done something like they have with the M50 in Dublin with a roundabout loop over the M7/N18 so that motorists coming from M20 could go to the city or the M7 or on the N18.

It's such a pain now having to exit the M20 at Dooradoyle to go by Rosbrien to get into town.

The M7/N18/M20 junction wasn't messed up. It was purposely designed not to have those movements. As I said above, I agree with the decision as there would be too much traffic entering a residential area.

mitresize5

dunworth1 wrote: »

traffic volumes would be there if the price was right.

when they trialed the free week for trucks the increase was 70%
so if they were to reduce the price to a more reasonable figure a lot more would use it.

i'm not going to pay 1.90 x2 a day just to save a few minutes of travel time
that's almost 20 euro a week. if it was 1 euro i'd be more inclined to use the tunnel

All that is perfectly reasonable on your behalf as it is your money to spend as you like.

My issue is with the politicians making a decision, stupid or not depending on your point of view, to finance this with private money and then complaining when the supplier wants a ROI

dr.fuzzenstein

mitresize5 wrote: »

that there is the problem with your post.

The tunnel operator is actually the partial tunnel owner i.e. the business that borrowed half a billion euro to build a critical piece of public infrastructure that should have been financed from central funds when the country was awash with money.

Why would you expect any private operator to build and finance any piece of public infrastructure if they weren't going to get a return. The fee they get every year in the form of tolls and anything supplementary from the government is a Minimum Annual Guarantee which is the bed rock of all projects (not just civil infrastructure) financed this way

http://www.allbusiness.com/the-minimum-guarantee-a-fundemental-feature-of-product-licensing-2-8518280-1.html

This has not surprisingly been spun by politicians to paint the company that designed built and financed the tunnel into the bad guy here when in fact the tunnel should never have been built if the traffic volumes weren't going to be there, or, financed by the government like the Jack Lynch tunnel.

Product licensing? The motorway is not Windows Server.

Clareman

I have to say I think the the tunnel is brilliant, it's very easy to forget not too long ago that if you wanted to get from Caherdavin to UL you'd be looking at almost an hour in peak traffic, now you can jump on the ring road and get there in ~15 minutes, the biggest problems with the ring road around Limerick now is getting off it, there seems to be a backlog on every exit now. Projects like the tunnel and other by-passes wouldn't be possible without part funding from private investors, to get these people you have to give incentives, I don't think anyone would pump half a billion into a project without some guarantees.

In regards to pricing, I agree it's too expensive, especially for the frequent users, in my opinion something like the discounts on the m50 for regular or registered users should be used to encourage people to use it, I think if you're an infrequent toll user €3 should be an acceptable amount for a once in a while journey, if you are a frequent user then something like a €1 would be more in line with what would be expected, maybe have a minimum spent of €10 for 10 journeys could encourage more and more people to use it.

As for lorries, I think lorries will always need to use to the dock road and make deliveries into the city so I can't see an easy solution there, I would have thought that it would be far more expensive to run a lorry through a city (with brake/diesel use or driver time) than it would be to take the toll, I would assume that most companies would be able to claim the expense through their tax returns.

mitresize5

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Product licensing? The motorway is not Windows Server.

Used to illustrate the concept of MAG's and it's use across all industry sectors but I'm pretty sure you knew that ...... if you didn't you do now

dr.fuzzenstein

mitresize5 wrote: »

Used to illustrate the concept of MAG's and it's use across all industry sectors but I'm pretty sure you knew that ...... if you didn't you do now

Well, yes I do now.
I had a look, this seems to deal more with a guaranteed return to the product owner, one example there being Disney getting a 20% licensing fee, but always getting a guaranteed minimum amount, regardless of income.
This seems to translate more into the motorway being licensed out to an operator who would pay a certain % of their income to the owner of the asset being licensed.
A bit like a franchise, i.e. McDonalds, where you set up the shop, kit it out and then pay a % of your income to the mothership. If no one buys your burgers, tough sh*t.
The Limerick tunnel works more like a franchisee sets up a Mickey D's and gets guaranteed a minimum turnover from the parent company and if they don't sell enough burgers, McDonalds will pay the difference.
Other minimum guarantees:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/minimum-guarantee

A minimum guarantee is an initial sum that is paid to the producer by the distributor irrespective of how the film performs. Typically, large producers command a high sum due to their brand that pulls in crowds into theatres.

A business where the party that runs the business is guaranteed a minimum income by the business owner is unheard of, at least to me. If it does exist, I want in.

mitresize5

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, yes I do now.
I had a look, this seems to deal more with a guaranteed return to the product owner, one example there being Disney getting a 20% licensing fee, but always getting a guaranteed minimum amount, regardless of income.
This seems to translate more into the motorway being licensed out to an operator who would pay a certain % of their income to the owner of the asset being licensed.
A bit like a franchise, i.e. McDonalds, where you set up the shop, kit it out and then pay a % of your income to the mothership. If no one buys your burgers, tough sh*t.
The Limerick tunnel works more like a franchisee sets up a Mickey D's and gets guaranteed a minimum turnover from the parent company and if they don't sell enough burgers, McDonalds will pay the difference.
Other minimum guarantees:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/minimum-guarantee



A business where the party that runs the business is guaranteed a minimum income by the business owner is unheard of, at least to me. If it does exist, I want in.

Look I don't want to sound patronising here and they do say if your explaining your losing but you seem to have gotten the whole thing backwards.

The (part) owner is Direct Route, the consortium that built and financed the tunnel. Not the government. I would think Ownership will pass to the government at the conclusion of the deal, although I couldn't be sure.

As the owners they are getting the toll income. If this doesn't reach the MAG they are subsidised to the point where they do.

In your example above Disney are the equivalent of Direct Route. direct Route are the product owner.

Anyway that's the long and the short of it. I haven't anything else to offer this conversation. I hope that clears it up

dr.fuzzenstein

mitresize5 wrote: »

Look I don't want to sound patronising here and they do say if your explaining your losing but you seem to have gotten the whole thing backwards.

The (part) owner is Direct Route, the consortium that built and financed the tunnel. Not the government. I would think Ownership will pass to the government at the conclusion of the deal, although I couldn't be sure.

As the owners they are getting the toll income. If this doesn't reach the MAG they are subsidised to the point where they do.

In your example above Disney are the equivalent of Direct Route. direct Route are the product owner.

Anyway that's the long and the short of it. I haven't anything else to offer this conversation. I hope that clears it up

I do very well understand the deal that the "proud" owners of the tunnel have gotten. The Gov said "you build it, and we guarantee the income"
That is akin to saying "You open a business and we guarantee the income". because that's what happened here. The Limerick tunnel is a business that a private operator was allowed to set up and open.
I am genuinely struggling to find another example where a private enterprise opened a business and the government said "If you don't at leats earn X, we will pay the difference".
Do you think the Irish government will subsidize Tesco if they don't hit their sales targets?
Show me ANY private business that has it's income GUARANTEED by the state.

Edit
Sorry that got out hand

Clareman

Reminder folks to attack the post not the poster

Clareman

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Show me ANY private business that has it's income GUARANTEED by the state.

I would say any semi-state organisation or private hospital.

I don't think it's fair to compare a PPP Scheme to a completely private company with shareholders. I would liken the schemes to more like a loan than a normal business, it's up to the government to repay the loan, the payment terms instead of being a normal x amount paid back at regular intervals are that the venture will be self funding as the government guarantees X amount of business, if those guaranteed targets aren't met then the funding amount will still need to be met, as fair as I know if the targets are exceeded (as they are at other tolls) then the government makes extra revenue.

In my opinion this is a far far far better option than either increasing excise duty on fuel, increasing road tax or taking funding from other infrastructure projects.