Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?
Options
-
12-04-2013 10:17pm#1
Comments
-
Badly. and yes they could always tunnel it, sure twould only cost about €711,007,233 and 34c ...well worth it.
There is an alternative to the western section. Upgrade Barna Corcullen and 2+2 from Corcullen to Glenlo Abbey Hotel which latter is also up for sale by NAMA and buying just the golf course and lands near the N59 would be a good idea right now. You will need a decent sized site for the tunnel entrance you see and you can come up west of the Tuam Road.0 -
-
Ideally with the construction of the Gluas and a few more pedestrianised streets and you'd have a fantastic city there.
A Gluas is no good for Connemara traffic. The sheer amount of traffic around NUIG/NUHG is still too high. If they can't go over the limestone flag they should go under the limestone instead, simples. Otherwise they will only waste the €711m paying bankers to do nothing as has been the case for the last 4 years.
There is plenty of substitute flag that can be added to the SAC instead of the tiny scrim of flag they are taking to the east of that SAC. Heck if they bought the Lackagh Rock quarry from the receiver and sanitised its fringe and turned it into a water feature they could probably compensate for the lost flag that way.
0 -
-
One further alternative is a 'limestone flag' bridge like the Aghnaguig Bog Bridge across a small SAC on the N3 Belturbet Bypass.
And there is a rake of flag between 2 quarries north of Menlo villages that can be Sac'd as compo. Its about 10m from the lake at one point.I fail to see why everyone is getting all hung up and wittering about what is a plentiful supply of Limestone Flag and IROPIS and stuff.There is more flag south of Lackagh Rock ( in receivership)
The Bridge !
Two significant bridge structures shall be provided as part of the proposed Scheme:
River Erne Bridge - this proposed bridge structure consists of a three span extrados bridge of prestressed and reinforced concrete construction. The proposed bridge is approximately 141m long between centreline of bearing at abutments and shall include a clear span (approximate length = 70m) across the River Erne.
Aghnaguig Bog Bridge - this proposed bridge shall be a three span bridge of minimum length 210m and shall mitigate the impact of the proposed Scheme on the bog woodland priority habitat in the townland of Aghnaguig.
The Contract shall comprise the design, execution and completion of the N3 Butlersbridge to Belturbet Road Improvement Scheme, including without limitation the provision of:
- Approximately 6.7 kilometres of standard single carriageway national primary road;
- Approximately 0.23 kilometres of reduced single carriageway regional e0 -
Advertisement
-
-
In and around Galway City there's seems to be a huge amount of current car trips which could be done by walking, cycling and public transport. The majority of people around the city are traveling relatively short distances and yet many of these trips are done by car.
On the Roads thread it was suggested there was an issue of lack of space but there's no huge space issue barring the improvement of cycling and walking in Galway. But often the issue isn't space it's getting how you use the space right and even when some space is used for cycling, it's poorly used.
The overall the attempts at improving cycling in Galway are a sick joke. "Shared use" seem to have been misused in Galway on a massively wider scale than in Dublin. The problems of lack of priority and general poor design of cycle tracks seen in Dublin seem far worse in Galway.
When you get to the point where designers feel the need to paint a man walking on the footpath, there's something gone seriously wrong:
The treatment of pedestrians seems to be even worse than how cyclists are treated -- or more so, pedestrians who are mainly pedestrians or bus users (as opposed to those who who only walk short distances from their cars). Look at GMT and the bus set up on the old Dublin Road with no crossing to get to the inbound bus stop... on a far from easy road to cross.
I've still yet to see a good reason for the removal of zebra crossing on Eyre Square.
On the fringes, access to places like the Galway Clinic (and the nearby houses) show how poorly walking and cycling is treated. Visitors and staff who want to walk or cycle have to face using the busy old Dublin Road and crossing a roundabout unaided on a dual carriageway (and less than 1km from the end of what is viewed as part of the motorway!).
If modal share change was looked at seriously, then improving the old "bypass" could be looked at.0 -
-
Is the Galway outer bypass needed?
Yes it is, the problem isn't so much the quantity of vehicles, but rather where they are being funnelled. All the city center traffic from the East and all the east west traffic must travel through this:
Are there alternatives? .... or upgrades to current routes,
What is needed are free flow junctions, but there is no space to do so at the current junctions (without serious money in buying land off the current land owners), combined with apparently a serious distaste for pedestrian bridges where they might be feasible (e.g. outside Dunnes Terryland) - which would be needed to make the junctions safe enough fort all road users.
The current "upgrades" don't seem to have had an effect at all, there are still long queues at peak times and at off peak times there are long waits. The only effect I can see is that the new junction layouts have increased the numbers of lanes entering the junctions, which with some minor redesigns (e.g. Ballybane Rd jucntion) have helped, but as for the lights controlling them, the only reason for thqat seems to be pedestrian access (which can and i.m.o. should be provided for many of the junctions using pedestrian bridges).
In the center of town, the preference of certain campaigners is to have no zebra crossings as they are not particularly usable for people with visual disabilities (fair enough), so light controlled junctions are the only option. I think a compromise can be done here to have a zebra style light incorporated into a two light traffic light (i.e. no green, just flashing yellow & red). When traffic is required to be stopped, push the button, otherwise the lights act as a zebra crossing. It might make things a bit more predicable for all concerned.Be that a different route, or different type of road,.... or a different approach or a mix of all these?
It's probably worth engaging a civil engineer to see if it's possible to build a bigger suspension bridge that would not touch the protected limestone, but there is an SAC between Monument Rd and the Headford Rd (N84), which the proposed road seems to run through a corner (if I'm reading the maps right). An alternative route through Menlo/Coolough wouldn't be particularly feasible as the current route was picked to minimise the impact on the village. North of the village is the lake itself, which is a minor problem for a road.
Going south of the proposed site gives problems with the traffic system in the area, there are already problems caused by the QB and the restrictions for right turns meaning that traffic has to be put along Thomas Hynes Rd - a residential area - coming from both West and North of the Bridge. Needless to say anything that would increase traffic in that neighbourhood is not a particularly smart move.
Other alternatives:
Buslanes - there are very few roads that are wide enough for bus lanes on both sides of the road ("3rd lane" bus lanes make no sense to me as there are rarely places where there's a one way problem on a two way road). Where bus lanes are proposed, there will be reductions in the available footpath space (Wellpark rd) which doesn't do walking any favours.
I made a suggestion before to make College road & Bohermore a one way system, with one of the lanes to be a bus lane, but I was shouted down because it would increase traffic flow (lets ignore the fact that it will decrease the amount of space available to cars and that buses can't get in and out of the center of town at rush hour in reasonable time).
Cycle lanes - might be possible, but will also have to take space off footpaths in many places as there are many roads where the lanes are close to the minimum width permissible and the cycle lanes need to be a certain width as well. It'd be interesting to see how that would work in spots like this and this, where there isn't a whole lot of room to spare.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Also, while we're at it, it should also be noted that probably the best and most sensible way of encouraging cycling within Galway would be to build the GCOB, and take the bulk of that heavy traffic off the roads in the city centre.
The HGV ban in Dublin was instrumental in making the city habitable for cyclists, and something similar for Galway would allow the City Council to make the road network, and particularly junctions, safer for cyclists. Right now, there simply isn't room to properly accomodate cyclists (and pedestrians) and still get traffic through the city. Push the motorists out to the periphery (and to managed radial routes) and all of a sudden you can create an environment in the city centre that can actually support a huge increase in the numbers cycling. At present, it's a pain in the ass (I say this as someone who commutes on a bike in Dublin, and runs in Galway from time to time).
Agreed: the removal of 5-axle trucks from Dublin City's central streets was a major safety boost for vulnerable road users, especially given that in previous years 4 out of 5 cyclists fatalities were due to left-turning trucks.
The 30 km/h zone also made a big difference.
The GCOB, even if the ECJ had issued a ruling in its favour, will not be built for years yet.
In the meantime, Galway City Council, despite seeking the lion's share of national funding for the Smarter Travel programme, didn't even include a HGV strategy and speed management plan in its draft Walking & Cycling Strategy, and fought tooth and nail to keep such pro-cycling/pedestrian measures out (iirc).
Claiming that there "simply isn't room to properly accommodate cyclists and pedestrians" in Galway City is to miss the point entirely that the main occupier of space is all those single-occupant cars, many of them on journeys over distances amenable to walking, cycling and public transport. Claiming there is no room for modes of travel that take up way less room than cars is self-evidently a car-centric view, based (imo) on the assumption that moving cars is more important than moving people.
I can't quite believe that I have to post this image yet again to illustrate the basic reality of travel mode versus finite urban road space, but there you go.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
antoobrien wrote: »That just ignores the problem that there are 37k journeys a day over the QB in Galway - just the bridge- and very few of those journeys are "short" trips. To put that in context, that's approaching the same levels as the M50/M1 showed in between J2 & J3 in January (40k vehicles).
Those who are ideologically against the Bypass constantly ignore that figure and hope it will go away...it won't UNTIL the bypass is built.
In order to create roadspace for other travel modes it is essential that lanes are taken out on the QB dualler and devoted to other uses ( COMBINED bus/cycle lanes would be useful) . The class of dualler built on the QB is congested at the movements currently there and taking a lane out would gridlock the city....and kill lots of sick people in ambulances on their way to UCHG...not that the ideologues care about that.
Road type capacity for the level of service ( 50kph) is certainly no more than 50k movements a day. If a lane is taken out this drops to no more than 15k
15k INTO 37k does not go.
Once the bypass is built I should think that 15-20k movements will transfer onto it daily. That of course means that the Bypass needs to be a dualler on day one but also means that 15-20k movements remain on the QB
Actions such as bus/cycle lane designation should take place IMMEDIATELY after the Bypass is built in order to manage QB movements down below 15k a day which is the most that the new Single lane bridge approach can now take. In fact Galway should become intolerant of having excessive vehicle movements in and around that chokepoint because it will remain a vital artery but at a deliberately greatly reduced vehicular capacity.
For now every sensible person knows that there is no alternative to a bypass because we are not going to get 20k Vehicle Movements onto bicycles in the pissing rain in Galway, well not overnight anyway and there is no road space for bus lanes at the QB pinch point.:D
However once the bypass is built then ruthlessly managing the vehicular traffic downwards is THE option that must be availed of for the benefit of all and ABSENT a bypass there is nowhere to send that traffic without crashing the entire economy of the west.....after all where do the taxpayers who pay for cycle and bus lanes and ecowhatnots come from if not Galway City??? 0 -
-
Nevertheless the idea that motorists can be systematically squeezed out before the bypass is but a form of neo Luddism. It would utterly destroy the economy of the city, which economy itself generates the economic activity to pay for the bypass in the first place.
So while other modes have my sympathy as always I don't think we can do much for them in the form of exclusive road space until the bypass is built and that we plan for doing everything for them the second it opens with the small caveat that the newly constrained road space will itself need to cater for up to 12-15k movements a day instead of 37k as now
And then someone will surely mention building the Gluas and removing a complete Bus/Cycle lane from service ....oh the problems of success...what!?? 0 -
-
-
Sponge Bob wrote: »Nevertheless the idea that motorists can be systematically squeezed out before the bypass is but a form of neo Luddism. It would utterly destroy the economy of the city, which economy itself generates the economic activity to pay for the bypass in the first place.
So while other modes have my sympathy as always I don't think we can do much for them in the form of exclusive road space until the bypass is built and that we plan for doing everything for them the second it opens with the small caveat that the newly constrained road space will itself need to cater for up to 12-15k movements a day instead of 37k as now
And then someone will surely mention building the Gluas and removing a complete Bus/Cycle lane from service ....oh the problems of success...what!??
Neo-Luddism? Really?
So London and Stockholm, two cities with well-established road pricing/congestion charging are run by Ned Ludd's ideological descendants?
And cities such as Leiden, Utrecht, Copenhagen and Ghent are all run-down kips, teeming with unemployed people and marred by boarded-up shops?
Evidence please, that modal shift away from car use is economically detrimental.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement