M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

Zzippy

veryangryman wrote: »

Possibly suit better to use the new cycle lanes on the old road. Possibly shorter distance too for those using only pedal power.

As for walking that far on any kind of regular basis....

As a recreational cyclist (non-commuter) I'd probably rather use a hard shoulder on a new road than a cycle lane on old road - better surface and you don't have to get off the cycle lane or yield at every junction, plus our cycle lanes are pretty crap and I would rather cycle on the road instead.

antoobrien

Zzippy wrote: »

To get from Moycullen to Parkmore, to take just one example? If there is a hard shoulder why would it be highly unpleasant?

I've never found cycling along the Tuam Rd or Ballybrit Dual Carriage way to be "highly unpleasant", however cycling and pedestrian access will be depended on whether it is classified as a motorway or not (I've seen no indication that it will, but afaik the Limerick & Waterford bypasses are Motorway and the more I look at the maps......).

Carawaystick

dubhthach wrote: »

It's interesting question, as this section of road looks to be Type 1 DC, I can't imagine there would be such provision as part of the road deck itself (eg. you'll have DC + hard shoulders), if they did make provision for them I'd imagine it would be seperate "deck", the question than arises with regards to access to such a deck. One the west side of River it wouldn't really be an issue given pedestrian/cyclist access to Dangan. On east side though you could be looking at private property.

I kind of meant if it's not motorway, then people will be walking along here, so safe access should be designed in.
But also access to the ucg playing fields for ped/cycling traffic from the headford rd and Conemara directions.

dubhthach

Zzippy wrote: »

To get from Moycullen to Parkmore, to take just one example? If there is a hard shoulder why would it be highly unpleasant?

Well it would be as fun as walking Parkmore to Athenry on the M6, of course if this section is designated as motorway it would also be illegal to either walk or cycle in the hard shoulder.

dubhthach

Carawaystick wrote: »

I kind of meant if it's not motorway, then people will be walking along here, so safe access should be designed in.
But also access to the ucg playing fields for ped/cycling traffic from the headford rd and Conemara directions.

Well if indeed it's built as Type 1 DC which apepars to be case, than it's equivalent to motorway other than lacking designation. I can't imagine it fun walking in hard shoulder as two lanes of traffic goes by at 100/120kph

Even if it's never designated I doubt they would allow cyclist/pedestrian access to tunnel sections.

Zzippy

dubhthach wrote: »

Well it would be as fun as walking Parkmore to Athenry on the M6, of course if this section is designated as motorway it would also be illegal to either walk or cycle in the hard shoulder.

As with the other poster, I was discussing the option of cycling it if it was not designated motorway. I'm well aware that cycling on a motorway is illegal. Cycling on the hard shoulder of a well-surfaced national road is much more pleasant than cycling on badly designed, badly surfaced and badly maintained cycle lanes where every junction requires either rejoining the road (dangerous manouevre) or yielding to traffic joining the road. Not that a cyclist has to use the hard shoulder, having the same right to use the road as other vehicles...

dubhthach

Sure as we see all the time with cyclists on the N11 in sections where it doesn't have a M11 designation. However given example of Jack Lynch tunnel and Limerick Tunnel, it's highly improbable that cyclists would be allowed use the tunnel sections of the route.

Zzippy

dubhthach wrote: »

Sure as we see all the time with cyclists on the N11 in sections where it doesn't have a M11 designation. However given example of Jack Lynch tunnel and Limerick Tunnel, it's highly improbable that cyclists would be allowed use the tunnel sections of the route.

Well that will make the bridge access idea moot, since crossing the bridge would require going via tunnel...

dubhthach

Zzippy wrote: »

Well that will make the bridge access idea moot, since crossing the bridge would require going via tunnel...

I do think that it would be good design to include a connected (but separated from carriageway) route for pedestrian/cyclist's. The question would be where would it terminate on the Menlo side.

Zzippy

Whatever about cycling, it would be great if the council could CPO Menlo Castle and have pedestrian access from the Dangan side over to it, and develop a public amenity there.

veryangryman

Zzippy wrote: »

Well that will make the bridge access idea moot, since crossing the bridge would require going via tunnel...

Thank holy f3ck

Fast and large vehicles doing long distances do not mix well with cyclists, legal or not.

dubhthach

Zzippy wrote: »

Whatever about cycling, it would be great if the council could CPO Menlo Castle and have pedestrian access from the Dangan side over to it, and develop a public amenity there.

Well given the plans for the greenway even having access to this from Menlo side would be good idea. Of course I'm also of opinion that pedestrian/cyclist bridge should be put across the corrib on the old railway pillars as well.

Zzippy

veryangryman wrote: »

Thank holy f3ck

Fast and large vehicles doing long distances do not mix well with cyclists, legal or not.

Facepalm. Are you suggesting that large/fast/long distance vehicles should not have to share the road with cyclists? What about 1L cars doing long distances? Or tractors? You do realise that cyclists are only prevented from accessing a tiny portion of the road network, and have as much right as you to the rest of the road network?

dubhthach wrote: »

Well given the plans for the greenway even having access to this from Menlo side would be good idea. Of course I'm also of opinion that pedestrian/cyclist bridge should be put across the corrib on the old railway pillars as well.

It would be a great spur off the proposed greenway and would greatly boost use of it if they developed the castle and grounds as a public park/picnic area, along the lines of Rinville Park or Barna Woods, with pedestrian/cycling access via the new bridge (maybe a hanging balcony bridge separated from the carriageway). I would also love to see the railway line bridged again for the greenway. As an aside, I believe the iron from the old bridge was sold for the princely sum of £10 back in the day...

rowr

Carawaystick wrote: »

Will there be pedestrian and cycling access across this new bridge?

Was in Arup meeting engineers yesterday and asked that question, they said it will be a 100kph dual carriageway with same rules as motorway, aim is to develop other city options for cycling.

spacetweek

Zzippy wrote: »

As a recreational cyclist (non-commuter) I'd probably rather use a hard shoulder on a new road than a cycle lane on old road - better surface and you don't have to get off the cycle lane or yield at every junction, plus our cycle lanes are pretty crap and I would rather cycle on the road instead.

Although I agree about the poor quality cycle lanes, surely the answer is better cycle lanes instead of cycling on a noisy dualler with 4 lanes of traffic and lorries bombing it past you?
I'd expect even if the new road isn't motorway that cycling and walking will be illegal anyway. As the other guy says, it certainly will be in the tunnels at least for safety reasons.

monument

spacetweek wrote: »

Although I agree about the poor quality cycle lanes, surely the answer is better cycle lanes instead of cycling on a noisy dualler with 4 lanes of traffic and lorries bombing it past you?
I'd expect even if the new road isn't motorway that cycling and walking will be illegal anyway. As the other guy says, it certainly will be in the tunnels at least for safety reasons.

Or the answer is a path/s for walking and cycling segragated from but alongside the planned road? For the bridge section at least?

Zzippy

spacetweek wrote: »

Although I agree about the poor quality cycle lanes, surely the answer is better cycle lanes instead of cycling on a noisy dualler with 4 lanes of traffic and lorries bombing it past you?
I'd expect even if the new road isn't motorway that cycling and walking will be illegal anyway. As the other guy says, it certainly will be in the tunnels at least for safety reasons.

Getting off topic now, but cycling on a DC with hard shoulder is actually a pleasure compared to most regional and local roads - noise is much the same (when vehicles are passing) but in general the surface is better and vehicles aren't passing you within a couple of feet. I never use cycle lanes, would rather cycle on the road beside them, as the surface is never maintained and gets covered in grit, gravel, broken glass and litter - all puncture material.

marno21

rowr wrote: »

Was in Arup meeting engineers yesterday and asked that question, they said it will be a 100kph dual carriageway with same rules as motorway, aim is to develop other city options for cycling.

Why not just make it a motorway with a 100km/h limit (same as M50/M8 J18-J19) if it's going to have restrictions on it?

Reuben1210

marno21 wrote: »

Why not just make it a motorway with a 100km/h limit (same as M50/M8 J18-J19) if it's going to have restrictions on it?

Agreed. No point not making this motorway. It's strategic national infrastructure. You cannot accommodate everyone, and this road needs to be motorway really to be future-proofed IMO.

veryangryman

Reuben1210 wrote: »

Agreed. No point not making this motorway. It's strategic national infrastructure. You cannot accommodate everyone, and this road needs to be motorway really to be future-proofed IMO.

+1000

Sam Russell

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I've done a quick check but I don't know whether this link has been posted already: detailed map of emerging preferred route.

Looking at the M6 end of that map, what is all that looping roads about? Did someone spill their pot noodle onto the map? Why not simply bring the N6 onto the bypass as a straight section with a simple junction onto the existing road system?

It appears to be a mess.

Schadenfreudia

Sam Russell wrote: »

Looking at the M6 end of that map, what is all that looping roads about? Did someone spill their pot noodle onto the map? Why not simply bring the N6 onto the bypass as a straight section with a simple junction onto the existing road system?

It appears to be a mess.

I have studied it closely, it makes perfect sense. It is an all-direction fully free-flow interchange between the extended N/M6 and the existing dual carriageways which will become part of a Galway inner-C-ring.

What puzzles me more is the two junctions, a mere 300m apart near Ballybrit, which are both eastbound exit and westbound entry only!

Aard

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

What puzzles me more is the two junctions, a mere 300m apart near Ballybrit, which are both eastbound exit and westbound entry only!

It's an odd interchange alright. Certainly lessens the case of the road being merely a "bypass" for the city (i.e. Connemara to east of Galway). Quite clearly there is an intention to provide for car commuter access to the employment locations in the east of the city.

Iwannahurl

Aard wrote: »

It's an odd interchange alright. Certainly lessens the case of the road being merely a "bypass" for the city (i.e. Connemara to east of Galway). Quite clearly there is an intention to provide for car commuter access to the employment locations in the east of the city.

That is exactly what it is for: facilitating car commuters west of the city to access Parkmore and Ballybrit. And this before ARUP has even started to outline the bones of a public transport component to the N6 Galway City Transport Project.

On local radio ARUP described the link roads as "a back door entrance to both Ballybrit and Parkmore" and suggested that it would be worth doing "if you had money for nothing else".

They justifiy it with reference to "ten thousand jobs" in Ballybrit/Parkmore. Odd how the same argument has not justified proper planning of and investment in public transport for the past couple of decades.

Schadenfreudia

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That is exactly what it is for: facilitating car commuters west of the city to access Parkmore and Ballybrit. And this before ARUP has even started to outline the bones of a public transport component to the N6 Galway City Transport Project.

On local radio ARUP described the link roads as "a back door entrance to both Ballybrit and Parkmore" and suggested that it would be worth doing "if you had money for nothing else".

They justifiy it with reference to "ten thousand jobs" in Ballybrit/Parkmore. Odd how the same argument has not justified proper planning of and investment in public transport for the past couple of decades.

Interesting. So these twin exits are leading candidates to be chopped by ABP - assuming the project goes ahead?

veryangryman

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That is exactly what it is for: facilitating car commuters west of the city to access Parkmore and Ballybrit. And this before ARUP has even started to outline the bones of a public transport component to the N6 Galway City Transport Project.

On local radio ARUP described the link roads as "a back door entrance to both Ballybrit and Parkmore" and suggested that it would be worth doing "if you had money for nothing else".

They justifiy it with reference to "ten thousand jobs" in Ballybrit/Parkmore. Odd how the same argument has not justified proper planning of and investment in public transport for the past couple of decades.

Most of these jobs are good high end, highly paid positions and thus most will drive to them regardless of PT options. I drive due to having such a position. It nice to be able to choose between a nice new clean aircon car and the general public. Even nicer if there is a Dual Carriageway that i can use to get to work.

Iwannahurl

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Interesting. So these twin exits are leading candidates to be chopped by ABP - assuming the project goes ahead?

I have no idea, tbh. Could it in fact be the opposite? If, as ARUP claims, these link roads are warranted on their own, the ABP might conceivably take the view that they could go ahead, even if the "bypass" is turned down.

Despite national and international policies mandating a decrease in car dependence and a reduction in CO2 emissions in the transport sector, ABP seems more than willing to accommodate more roads and more cars. The example I have been using recently is the major expansion of Kildare Vilage.

veryangryman wrote: »

Most of these jobs are good high end, highly paid positions and thus most will drive to them regardless of PT options. I drive due to having such a position. It nice to be able to choose between a nice new clean aircon car and the general public. Even nicer if there is a Dual Carriageway that i can use to get to work.

So the people in those "ten thousand jobs" are too important to walk, cycle or take the bus? Is that a key pillar of the business case for this €500 million "transport project"?

Sam Russell

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

I have studied it closely, it makes perfect sense. It is an all-direction fully free-flow interchange between the extended N/M6 and the existing dual carriageways which will become part of a Galway inner-C-ring.

Looking at the way Galway has been planned in the past, I would have thought that a good few roundabouts could have been included in the junction design just for old time sakes.

antoobrien

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

I have studied it closely, it makes perfect sense. It is an all-direction fully free-flow interchange between the extended N/M6 and the existing dual carriageways which will become part of a Galway inner-C-ring.

Looks like they will have to take out the roundabout at the end of the motorway to facilitate this.

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

What puzzles me more is the two junctions, a mere 300m apart near Ballybrit, which are both eastbound exit and westbound entry only!

There's something similar at Swords on the M1, allowing for access from Northbound traffic and Southbound exit only. It looks like they chose this so as to keep the number of junctions full junctions down, as there would be 4 full junctions in about 5 miles.

I wonder why they went away from the proposal from the blue route (which included access to Parkmore & Ballybrit) of having a single junction between the Tuam & Headford roads, with a road paralleling the bypass to link back to the Tuam & Headford Roads.

Zzippy

veryangryman wrote: »

Most of these jobs are good high end, highly paid positions and thus most will drive to them regardless of PT options. I drive due to having such a position. It nice to be able to choose between a nice new clean aircon car and the general public. Even nicer if there is a Dual Carriageway that i can use to get to work.

Wow. "Look at me, I'm far too important and high earning to share public transport with you plebs. And I have a much nicer car than you".

Do you think all the stockbrokers and hedge fund managers in London drive to their jobs? Seriously, of all the reasons to build a "bypass"/commuter road, yours is the most ridiculous yet...