N18 - Limerick Tunnel & South Ring Road Phase II

veryangryman

liammur wrote: »

Nonsense. The tourists are delighted to be able to bypass limerick going to kerry/clare/galway.
The authorities are starting to get nervous. By October it will be fewer than 10,000 a day

You actually think we have more tourist journeys than working people journeys over the year. Please think about what you are posting before you post it. Yes everyone (the tourists, workers and myself included) glad to bypass Limerick en route elsewhere but to say that this tunnel was not needed to unclog the streets during the working week is ridiculous.

Ive been to college in LIT and have often beat the bus from city centre by walking such is the traffic during week. Weekends are a polar opposite as most commuters/students etc go home. During summer it mirrors the weekend. Once the schools and colleges are back the city will be busy out again and those coming from Kerry/Cork will use the tunnel to get to the north suburbs (LIT/Caherdavin/Coonagh). Same applies for Clare/Galway people going towards Castletroy/UL

It is foolish to suggest otherwise

liammur

Time will tell.
I suspect the taxpayer will be paying a lot of cash here.

mossym

liammur wrote: »

Nonsense. The tourists are delighted to be able to bypass limerick going to kerry/clare/galway.
The authorities are starting to get nervous. By October it will be fewer than 10,000 a day

ah yes, the masses of tourists around these days

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/number-of-tourists-down-by-4250-a-day-126619.html

tear on year the roads are quieter during the summer with the schools off.

you think the tourists are more willing to use the tunnel to bypass traffic on a one off trip more so than those that have to sit in the traffic every day?

liammur

mossym wrote: »

ah yes, the masses of tourists around these days

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/number-of-tourists-down-by-4250-a-day-126619.html

tear on year the roads are quieter during the summer with the schools off.

you think the tourists are more willing to use the tunnel to bypass traffic on a one off trip more so than those that have to sit in the traffic every day?

You must realise tourists also include irish people on holidays.

mossym

liammur wrote: »

You must realise tourists also include irish people on holidays.

i do, and i also realize that irish tourists will be on irish roads once the summer is over, and driving more often than when they are on holidays..i.e. twice a day every weekday

liammur

i will update again in a few months with the figures, suffice to say at the moment they are more than disappointed.

Maybe dropping the price to a €1 per journey may help with the flagging sales.

L1011

liammur wrote: »

Time will tell.
I suspect the taxpayer will be paying a lot of cash here.

No, they won't. Even should your backwards world of traffic flows exist, there is no "revenue floor" on this scheme. That exists on the M3 and M3 alone.

"The tourists" are outweighed, heavily, by the increased traffic in winter months caused by schools, the university, the IT and inclement weather.

Time will tell that you're horrendously wrong. Again.

liammur

MYOB wrote: »

[/B]

No, they won't. Even should your backwards world of traffic flows exist, there is no "revenue floor" on this scheme. That exists on the M3 and M3 alone.

"The tourists" are outweighed, heavily, by the increased traffic in winter months caused by schools, the university, the IT and inclement weather.

Time will tell that you're horrendously wrong. Again.

Again incorrect. I like this guy

Fewer than 12,000 vehicles today and the taxpayer will make up the shortfall.

L1011

liammur wrote: »

Again incorrect. I like this guy

Fewer than 12,000 vehicles today and the taxpayer will make up the shortfall.

Proof, or stop lying.

veryangryman

MYOB wrote: »

[/B]

Proof, or stop lying.

+1

Liammur, are you Mysterious in disguise?

rainbowdash

I went from CE to Cork this morning and went through LK to avoid the toll. Coming back, at the end of a long day the tunnel was a nobrainer.

very little traffic on Shannon bridge at 8.45am today though.

Wild Bill

liammur wrote: »

I hear the numbers using the tunnel are nowhere near the target. And they will decline drastically once the summer seaon ends.
If ever there was a case of 'we could have told you so'.

Nah. If ever there was a case of 'we could have told you so' it is the non-use of the new Galway-Ennis railway !

knipex

liammur wrote: »

Nonsense. The tourists are delighted to be able to bypass limerick going to kerry/clare/galway.
The authorities are starting to get nervous. By October it will be fewer than 10,000 a day

Do you drive in Limerick ? Have you ever even been in Limerick ?

The roads in Limerick are wayyyyyyy quieter during the summer, especially the condell road, dock road and Ennis road.

Anyone who drives regularly in Limerick will tell you that.

Also as has been posted previously there is no minimum traffic guarantee in place for the tunnel.

blackwarrior

liammur wrote: »

1. Nonsense.

2. The tourists are delighted to be able to bypass limerick going to kerry/clare/galway. [Says who?]

3. The authorities are starting to get nervous. I]1 month into a 35-year contract?[/I

4. By October it will be fewer than 10,000 a day I]Based on what analysis?[/I

Well argued there lemur!

liammur

Wild Bill wrote: »

Nah. If ever there was a case of 'we could have told you so' it is the non-use of the new Galway-Ennis railway !

At last a bit of reasoning, but sorry folks, the quality of the other posts simply don't merit a reply.

Will update you all on the progress in a few months, then we can decide.

Zoney

There will be more traffic around Limerick city in the Autumn, as always - most posters here are quite right in that.

Of course it remains to be seen if it will use the tunnel. I'm actually inclined to think not, as a lot of cross-city traffic in Limerick needs a non-existent northern relief road/ring-road (or indeed uses the route past Thomond Park, across Kings Island and over new Abbey river bridge to Dublin Road). The rest uses M7 and M20 to get between Castletroy and Raheen or else is going to/from the city centre.

For local traffic the tunnel only really serves Caherdavin, half of which is just outside the city centre anyway and would hardly go out of their way to go via the tunnel.

So it's really only long-distance that's going to be using the tunnel. That traffic might indeed be less after the summer.

So in a sense, all the posters here may be correct from a certain point of view - but I think liammur has a point even if it's not clear-cut and a bit counter-intuitive.

Cookiemunster

Zoney wrote: »

So in a sense, all the posters here may be correct from a certain point of view - but I think liammur has a point even if it's not clear-cut and a bit counter-intuitive.

Whether the traffic increases or not the issue is that liammur keeps making unsubstantiated claims that he has yet to back up. He claims only 12,000 cars a day are using it yet in every interview I've read from Tom King since the tunnel opened he states that they are already getting 17,000 vehicles a day. Until I see the NRAs traffic counters contradicting him, I'll believe Tom King.
Also he claims that the taxpayers will end up paying for lower traffic levels even though he's been told more than once that the M3 is the only scheme with that clause.

Wild Bill

liammur wrote: »

At last a bit of reasoning, but sorry folks, the quality of the other posts simply don't merit a reply.

Will update you all on the progress in a few months, then we can decide.

Ahem! (Embarrassed cough).

I'm not actually anti-tunnel; but as you so aptly put it the proof of the pudding will be in the baking. :cool:

L1011

liammur wrote: »

At last a bit of reasoning, but sorry folks, the quality of the other posts simply don't merit a reply.

Will update you all on the progress in a few months, then we can decide.

So, that'd be no proof for your lie about the state covering losses on the road, then? Grand so.

L1011

Zoney wrote: »

There will be more traffic around Limerick city in the Autumn, as always - most posters here are quite right in that.

Of course it remains to be seen if it will use the tunnel. I'm actually inclined to think not, as a lot of cross-city traffic in Limerick needs a non-existent northern relief road/ring-road (or indeed uses the route past Thomond Park, across Kings Island and over new Abbey river bridge to Dublin Road). The rest uses M7 and M20 to get between Castletroy and Raheen or else is going to/from the city centre.

For local traffic the tunnel only really serves Caherdavin, half of which is just outside the city centre anyway and would hardly go out of their way to go via the tunnel.

So it's really only long-distance that's going to be using the tunnel. That traffic might indeed be less after the summer.

Increased local traffic in the city during the winter months will push more long-distance traffic in to paying for the toll. I've used the tunnel to get to LIT from the Dublin side of the the city - I'd not bother in summer if it was my own money going on the toll, but when there's winter traffic I would. I'm in no way unique.

liammur

MYOB wrote: »

So, that'd be no proof for your lie about the state covering losses on the road, then? Grand so.

Prove me incorrect or withdraw your lie allegations. I will readily apologise if you can do so.

Put up or shut up.

L1011

liammur wrote: »

Prove me incorrect or withdraw your lie allegations. I will readily apologise if you can do so.

Put up or shut up.

You're the one making the claim, you're the one with the onus to prove it. And you can't. Hence its a lie.

Amtmann

liammur wrote: »

At last a bit of reasoning, but sorry folks, the quality of the other posts simply don't merit a reply.

With respect, the quality of your own posts is falling short of the standard normally encountered in this forum. Your posts consist of short statements bereft of any facts. You are speculating and not backing anything up whatsoever. Unless you can prove that the taxpayer will have to foot the bill should AADT in the tunnel fall catastrophically low, you should be prepared to gracefully accept correction when it is pointed out that you are wrong. To not do so constitutes trolling and soapboxing, both of which are frustrating and annoying for other posters, as well as against the forum's charter.

flyingsnail

liammur wrote: »

Prove me incorrect or withdraw your lie allegations. I will readily apologise if you can do so.

Put up or shut up.

you are the one who said it, the burden of proof is on you.

Amtmann

MYOB wrote: »

So, that'd be no proof for your lie about the state covering losses on the road, then? Grand so.

Don't accuse other posters of lying - the poster in question could just be misinformed. If they are misinformed and refuse to accept correction then that's soapboxing and another matter entirely.

liammur

Furet wrote: »

With respect, the quality of your own posts is falling short of the standard normally encountered in this forum. Your posts consist of short statements bereft of any facts. You are speculating and not backing anything up whatsoever. Unless you can prove that the taxpayer will have to foot the bill should AADT in the tunnel fall catastrophically low, you should be prepared to gracefully accept correction when it is pointed out that you are wrong. To not do so constitutes trolling and soapboxing, both of which are frustrating and annoying for other posters, as well as against the forum's charter.

This will be my last post in this section.

Fewer than 12,000 vehicles a day and the tax-payer will pay. If you want proof, contact the tunnel authorities. I suspect no one will prove this incorrect. To call someone a liar for that demonstrates a considerable lack of intelligence.

Amtmann

liammur wrote: »

This will be my last post in this section.

Fewer than 12,000 vehicles a day and the tax-payer will pay. If you want proof, contact the tunnel authorities. I suspect no one will prove this incorrect. To call someone a liar for that demonstrates a considerable lack of intelligence.

Okay, this is your claim. If the NRA says otherwise I trust you will accept correction and drop it. If you would care to link to proof for your claim that would make the thread more bearable.

L1011

liammur wrote: »

This will be my last post in this section.

Fewer than 12,000 vehicles a day and the tax-payer will pay. If you want proof, contact the tunnel authorities. I suspect no one will prove this incorrect. To call someone a liar for that demonstrates a considerable lack of intelligence.

I don't see why anyone here other than the person making the claim should have to do any work to provide proof.

If you want to make the claim, provide the proof yourself.

liammur

Furet wrote: »

Okay, this is your claim. If the NRA says otherwise I trust you will accept correction and drop it. If you would care to link to proof for your claim that would make the thread more bearable.

Furet, i appreciate you as a moderator,and hence my reply. I didn't come on this thread or any other thread to tell lies or engage in niggling. I stated above I would readily apologise if I was wrong. I won't divulge where I got my information from but everyone is free to contact the tunnel authorities. As far as I am concerned this is the end of the matter.

liammur

To clear my name I had to go onto the internet and search to prove that the M3 is NOT the only project which includes a PPP traffic guarantee mechanism.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=TRJ20091118.XML&Ex=All&Page=2


Deputy Cuffe asked a number of questions relating to public private partnership schemes being undertaken by the authority. The M3 PPP contract includes a traffic guarantee mechanism. The essence of such a mechanism, which is a common feature worldwide of large tolled infrastructure projects, is that where actual traffic levels on the road fall below predefined levels the contracting authority, in this case the NRA, makes certain payments to the concession company to compensate for the traffic shortfall up to the guaranteed level only. In the case of the M3, the traffic shortfall payments are subject to a number of conditions, the most substantial being that any payments made under it cannot be greater than 90% of debt service payments in any period when added to the toll revenues collected. This still leaves the concession company operating on a loss basis because it will have to fund ongoing operational costs as well as remaining debt service amounts. The rationale for introducing the traffic guarantee on the M3 scheme, although not on earlier schemes, arose due to its larger financial scale than the schemes in which the NRA had been involved previously. The scale of the private debt involved was approximately twice that of the earlier schemes. This traffic guarantee was solely developed with the final concession company but formed the basis upon which all of the companies and their banks tendered for the project. Ireland sought and received clearance from the European Commission for the guarantee.
The level of traffic guarantee set out in the PPP contract for the initial year of operation is a combined total for the two plazas of 25,250 vehicles per day. If the traffic levels are 25,000 and the debt level thresholds are contravened, the concessionaire would receive an additional payment of approximately €100,000. If the traffic levels are 35,000 no additional payment arises.
Deputy Cuffe also asked whether a traffic guarantee arises in any other PPP scheme procured to date. I can confirm that a traffic guarantee provision has been included in the Limerick tunnel PPP scheme. There were two reasons for its inclusion in this scheme, namely, to improve the bankability of a large and complex scheme and because the traffic modelling demonstrated that the forecast usage of the tolled tunnel varied considerably depending on assumptions about the implementation of Limerick City Council’s proposed city centre traffic management proposals. The NRA took the view that it would be inappropriate for tenders to take the element of traffic risk contingent on the implementation of the council’s city centre traffic management plan and that transferring such risk would not yield value for money. The traffic guarantee on the Limerick tunnel commences at 17,200 vehicles per day subject to debt levels provision. As the traffic guarantees diminish significantly with time both in terms of percent of forecast guaranteed and in terms of the outstanding debt level, the Government’s smarter travel policy, which post-dates the PPP contracts, is unlikely to be affected. The traffic guarantees for the Limerick project were also formally approved by the European Commission.

Amtmann

Okay, thanks for that. Apologies would seem to be in order!

liammur

Furet, as I said earlier I respect you as a moderator and I have no problem with your comments. However, it is not nice and indeed a dangerous allegation to make accusing people of lying which 1 poster blatantly did on more than 1 occasion. I used the figure of 12,000 because this is the average figure over the life of the tunnel which I assumed was the fairest figure, it starts off at 17,200 but decreases over time.
I did say I will post the numbers using the tunnel in a few months time but on reflection I won't. I will happily oblige privately though if anyone does want the numbers.

Amtmann

liammur wrote: »

Furet, as I said earlier I respect you as a moderator and I have no problem with your comments. However, it is not nice and indeed a dangerous allegation to make accusing people of lying which 1 poster blatantly did on more than 1 occasion. I used the figure of 12,000 because this is the average figure over the life of the tunnel which I assumed was the fairest figure, it starts off at 17,200 but decreases over time.
I did say I will post the numbers using the tunnel in a few months time but on reflection I won't. I will happily oblige privately though if anyone does want the numbers.

Well I have to say thank you for the link. It is great to know; I don't think that information was ever posted here before. It should serve as a reminder to everyone that we don't know it all here. It also demonstrates that links should generally be provided when possible. And I agree that no one should have to endure being called a liar on the forum, hence my on-thread warning to MYOB. I suggest we all move on now and put this behind us.

L1011

Organisational problems continue:

Express lanes unconed at Clonmacken. Neither worked

Tag failed to read on tunnelbound manned gate at Clonmacken also, they had to manually record the number. It worked on the outbound lane half an hour ealier and on the Portlaoise toll an hour or so later!

ItHurtsWhenIP

MYOB wrote: »

Express lanes unconed at Clonmacken. Neither worked

According to a workmate who was coming through the tunnel this morning heading to Shannon, he tried the express lane (he has a tag that works in the other lanes), it beeped as if all was well but the barrier wouldn't open.

According to the attendant that came over to him, his problem was the car behind him was following too close and that they need a separation of 30m between cars!!! :eek:

Will this get people out of the tail-gating habit? :rolleyes:

topper75

Any dates being put about for the completion of works and removal of cones on the dual carriageway approaching Coonagh (old road)?

Indeed, as I'm posting, what are these works? Lighting?

cremeegg

MMFITWGDV wrote: »

According to a workmate who was coming through the tunnel this morning heading to Shannon, he tried the express lane (he has a tag that works in the other lanes), it beeped as if all was well but the barrier wouldn't open.

According to the attendant that came over to him, his problem was the car behind him was following too close and that they need a separation of 30m between cars!!! :eek:

Will this get people out of the tail-gating habit? :rolleyes:

I try the express lanes a few times and it beeps and stays closed. and there is noone behind me.

Twin-go

cremeegg wrote: »

I try the express lanes a few times and it beeps and stays closed. and there is noone behind me.

This happened to me a few times too. Try slowing down to closer to the 50km/h. This work for me.

On another note:

Last friday I was heading towards Shannon. I went into express lane with one other car in front of me. As they went in the red X flashed then the arrow flashed telling them to exit left. They didn't exit, they sat infront of the closed barrier. When I went through I got the green light and as I got closer the barrier when up and the car in front went through. I was then forced left as the barrier closed. Looks like they got a free toll. I don't know if I was charged twice:mad:

spacetweek

MMFITWGDV wrote: »

According to a workmate who was coming through the tunnel this morning heading to Shannon, he tried the express lane (he has a tag that works in the other lanes), it beeped as if all was well but the barrier wouldn't open.

According to the attendant that came over to him, his problem was the car behind him was following too close and that they need a separation of 30m between cars!!! :eek:

That was your mate's fault; it should be pretty clear that the system can't overlap cars. You should be far enough behind that you beep *after* the bloke in front makes it under the barrier, not before.

cremeegg wrote: »

I try the express lanes a few times and it beeps and stays closed. and there is noone behind me.

It's when they're in front of you, not behind.

CerebralCortex

spacetweek wrote: »

That was your mate's fault; it should be pretty clear that the system can't overlap cars. You should be far enough behind that you beep *after* the bloke in front makes it under the barrier, not before.

It's when they're in front of you, not behind.

Yes but MMFITWGDV was talking about someone behind him!

limklad

knipex wrote: »

Do you drive in Limerick ? Have you ever even been in Limerick ?

The roads in Limerick are wayyyyyyy quieter during the summer, especially the condell road, dock road and Ennis road.

Anyone who drives regularly in Limerick will tell you that.

Also as has been posted previously there is no minimum traffic guarantee in place for the tunnel.

I fully agree with this statement. It been consistent low Traffic during the summer months throughout the boom times especially when the schools are off.

ItHurtsWhenIP

spacetweek wrote: »

That was your mate's fault; it should be pretty clear that the system can't overlap cars. You should be far enough behind that you beep *after* the bloke in front makes it under the barrier, not before.

Thanks Cerebral Cortex - as you correctly pointed out my mate was referring to the guy behind him who was tail-gating him that caused the problem. Not something my mate had any control over. There was no-one in front of him.

I'm now hearing from others that you really do need to slow down going through these express lanes too. If you're too fast the "veer left" thingy comes on, but if you slow to near 50kph, the barrier will raise.

Another workmate told me that they are now putting traffic lights on the Condell road at the junction with Shelbourne road. What next speed bumps on Condell Road?:eek: (sorry mod - off topic I know ).

zilog_jones

MMFITWGDV wrote: »

Another workmate told me that they are now putting traffic lights on the Condell road at the junction with Shelbourne road. What next speed bumps on Condell Road?:eek: (sorry mod - off topic I know ).

That's just a pedestrian crossing, isn't it? That's what it looked like to me anyway when I passed it a few days ago...
(it used to be the N18, it's close enough to the topic )

daveharnett

MMFITWGDV wrote: »

What next speed bumps on Condell Road?:eek: (sorry mod - off topic I know ).

I suspect it's kind of on-topic actually, given the post above that demonstrates that the state has guaranteed a certain volume of traffic for the tunnel operator. 50kph seems an awfully slow limit for condell road.

If the numbers are looking dodgey toward the end of the year, don't be surprised to see flagmen walking up and down condell road until motorists get the hint

zilog_jones

I drove down the Condell Road today and it looks like they really are installing traffic lights at the Shelbourne Road junction, not just pedestrian crossing lights! :eek:

daveharnett wrote: »

50kph seems an awfully slow limit for condell road.

Yes it's mad, and nothing is being done to try and enforce it - it's like they don't even care. The problem is people are taking the piss and driving 100 km/h+ down the road with pedestrians getting killed as a result (I think someone was around 2007 IIRC), not that the old speed limit was too high.

TestTransmission

zilog_jones wrote: »

I drove down the Condell Road today and it looks like they really are installing traffic lights at the Shelbourne Road junction, not just pedestrian crossing lights! :eek:

About time if you ask me,badly needed there.

cremeegg

Twin-go wrote: »

This happened to me a few times too. Try slowing down to closer to the 50km/h. This work for me.

On another note:

Last friday I was heading towards Shannon. I went into express lane with one other car in front of me. As they went in the red X flashed then the arrow flashed telling them to exit left. They didn't exit, they sat infront of the closed barrier. When I went through I got the green light and as I got closer the barrier when up and the car in front went through. I was then forced left as the barrier closed. Looks like they got a free toll. I don't know if I was charged twice:mad:

ya i slowed down this evening and it parted like the red sea....

slinky2000

That's crazy. The Portlaoise toll I can go through at 100+ km/h and it lifts with plenty of time with my eflow tag!

rainbowdash

Another roundabout being installed at Sheils garage. Another delay for those hoping to avoid the toll.

highlydebased

The condell road speed limit is quite quite short sighted. It should be 80kmh in my opinion- pedestrians should not be on the road itself- There is now a separate cycle lane