Proposed Traffic Calming in Galway City

galwaycyclist

Mods: Feel free to move to Infrastructure if that is better.

Public Notice: Traffic Calming Measures in Various Areas
24 July 2013

TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
Roads Act 1994 - Section 38
Notice of Proposal

http://www.galwaycity.ie/GeneralNews/240713_01.html

Note by OP: These works may or may not involve actual "traffic calming" Galway City Council recently used Section 38 to announce the addition of new lanes to a junction in Mervue.

Iwannahurl

Only just noticed this thread.

I'm aware of problems with some of the proposed locations for traffic calming, eg Rahoon Road, so in broad terms I would welcome the measures.

Can you elaborate a bit on the significance of Section 38 and additional measures such as extra traffic lanes?

galwaycyclist

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can you elaborate a bit on the significance of Section 38 and additial measures such as extra traffic lanes?

I don't know what the significance is. Usually road redevelopments are advertised and submissions are sought under Part 8 of the Planning and Development Act.

Why they would start using the Roads Act is not clear.

Iwannahurl

Any link to info on the Mervue scheme?

galwaycyclist

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Any link to info on the Mervue scheme?

http://www.galwaycity.ie/GeneralNews/150812_02.html

Public Notice: Traffic Calming Measures - Junction at Wellpark Road/Connolly Avenue/Monivea Road/Joyces Road
15 August 2012

TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 – SECTION 38
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL

Galway City Council HEREBY GIVES NOTICE , under Section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1994, of its intention to realign and upgrade the signal controlled junction at Wellpark Road/Connolly Avenue/Monivea Road/Joyces Road.

Documents can be inspected at Galway City Council, Transportation, Infrastructure, Recreation and Amenity Department, during normal hours from 9a.m. to 4p.m., Monday to Friday, from Friday, 17th August, 2012.

Documents may also be viewed on our website: www.galwaycity.ie

Submissions and observations with respect to the proposed works may be made in writing to the undersigned no later than 12.00 noon on Monday, 10th September, 2012.

Works carried out comprised road widening and addition of more lanes to arms of the junction.

serfboard

galwaycyclist wrote: »

TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
Roads Act 1994 - Section 38
Notice of Proposal

http://www.galwaycity.ie/GeneralNews/240713_01.html

I'm amazed that they're planning traffic calming on Dr. Mannix Road and not in Oaklands which is in far greater need of it, IMO.

Iwannahurl

serfboard wrote: »

I'm amazed that they're planning traffic calming on Dr. Mannix Road and not in Oaklands which is in far greater need of it, IMO.

My guess would be that speeds are higher on Dr Mannix Road, which is also an access route to a number of schools.

Besides, I have it on good authority that traffic calming was proposed for Oaklands in the last couple of years. Some residents wanted it for road safety reasons, but louder and more influential voices prevailed.

Traffic calming is highly political, in my view, and is not necessarily implemented according to evidence and desired road safety outcomes.

galwaycyclist

There are now drawings of what is proposed here

http://www.galwaycity.ie/GeneralNews/240713_01.html

Much of it seems to be traffic calming in the commonly accepted sense eg raised junctions, speed ramps etc.

However this drawing is not

http://www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/RoadsandTraffic/Publications/TrafficCalmingMeasures/RT01.pdf

It involves a fundamental revision of the junction at the Fire Station on Fr Griffin Rd. Including reversing and rerouting traffic on Raven Terrace, reversing traffic flow on what I think is still Fairhill coming past Monroes, opening the road behind the funeral home as a one-way street, banning right turns into Raven Terrace.

There are also wider implications for traffic at Munster Ave etc that are not shown in the drawings. Also the dimensions of the lanes is not given.

monument

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There are now drawings of what is proposed here

http://www.galwaycity.ie/GeneralNews/240713_01.html

Much of it seems to be traffic calming in the commonly accepted sense eg raised junctions, speed ramps etc.

However this drawing is not

http://www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/RoadsandTraffic/Publications/TrafficCalmingMeasures/RT01.pdf

It involves a fundamental revision of the junction at the Fire Station on Fr Griffin Rd. Including reversing and rerouting traffic on Raven Terrace, reversing traffic flow on what I think is still Fairhill coming past Monroes, opening the road behind the funeral home as a one-way street, banning right turns into Raven Terrace.

There are also wider implications for traffic at Munster Ave etc that are not shown in the drawings. Also the dimensions of the lanes is not given.

The second drawing at first look seems to be the road/lane narrowing stuff that's allowed and even pushed in the manual for urban streets and roads, but which is really poor for cyclists.

galwaycyclist

monument wrote: »

The second drawing at first look seems to be the road/lane narrowing stuff that's allowed and even pushed in the manual for urban streets and roads, but which is really poor for cyclists.

Agreed. On one of the busiest cycling routes into the city they are effectively removing road capacity from cyclists to give it to cars.

Iwannahurl

The change of direction on the Raven Terrace one-way is significant for cyclists, I reckon. I'm not sure whether car parking will still be provided on that link, but I've always felt it was a suitable road for a cycle contra-flow lane.

It's handy to be able to cut through Raven Terrace from the Claddagh or the Wolfe Tone Bridge to Dominick Street, and it would be very handy if you could cycle along Raven Terrace in the opposite direction.

Now it seems that they want to continue to restrict cyclists, only this time the direction is changed. That's my reading of the drawings anyway, though I'm open to correction.

AFAIK national policy supports the exemption of cyclists from prohibited right turns. The Galway City Development Plan mandates such exemptions where feasible and appropriate.

It's odd that they have made provision for a "Public Bike Scheme Zone" on Raven Terrace but apparently intend to make it awkward for cyclists to access it. If indeed their plan is not to increase permeability for cyclists, perhaps their undeclared expectation is that cyclists will simply work it out for themselves, whether in an orthodox and legal fashion or not. My impression is that Galway City Council's usual MO is to design a scheme primarily for motorised traffic and then turn a blind eye as cyclists adapt by whatever means necessary, such as by cycling on footpaths and weaving up one-way streets.

Mind you, they have exempted cyclists from prohibited right turns in the proposed modifications to junction of Taylor's Hill and Threadneedle Road: http://www.galwaycity.ie/GeneralNews/010813_03.html

monument

I did up an image-heavy blog post on this:

In the name of traffic calming — but Galway City can’t be blamed for this cycling unfriendly design

galwaycyclist

monument wrote: »

I did up an image-heavy blog post on this:

In the name of traffic calming — but Galway City can’t be blamed for this cycling unfriendly design

Note how drivers currently keep away from the edge of the road, which means at peak times cyclists are less affected by congestion and when traffic is in full-flow there’s room to pass cyclists safety:

This is the key point - although there are currently "stacking lanes" for cars - the current dynamics of the junction mean that for motor traffic travelling along Fr Griffin Rd there is no advantage to using the leftmost lanes. So these lanes tend to stay clear so that cyclists can keep moving.

This design will push queuing cars into the kerb and effectively push cyclists up onto the footpaths.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

AFAIK national policy supports the exemption of cyclists from prohibited right turns. The Galway City Development Plan mandates such exemptions where feasible and appropriate.

Mind you, they have exempted cyclists from prohibited right turns in the proposed modifications to junction of Taylor's Hill and Threadneedle Road: http://www.galwaycity.ie/GeneralNews/010813_03.html

Correction: I meant to say one-way streets instead of prohibited right turns. The general principle is the same, however.

galwaycyclist

Two views of the same junction taken this morning.

Looking towards city centre from Salthill


Looking towards Salthill from city centre


What the designers tried to do was to put in two straight on stacking lanes to encourage cars to take up as much space as possible at the junction. Thereby also removing road capacity from cyclists.

However there is no advantage to doing this as the exit to the junction is single lane. Two lanes have to become one again on the far side. Drivers in the left-hand lane are out of the main traffic stream and have to try and negotiate their way back in to get through the junction. So they try not to use the leftmost lane.

The net effect is that there is still room for cyclists to keep moving on the inside.

The implied effect of the proposed changes will be to push the main traffic queue onto the leftmost lanes.

monument

This is a not so common design in Copenhagen (most cycle paths go right up to junctions - note the path ends in the background), but I'm guessing it could be very useful here:

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The implied effect of the proposed changes will be to push the main traffic queue onto the leftmost lanes.

Engineers like these stacking lanes because of their role in maximising junction capacity: would that be a reasonable interpretation?

If so, this "traffic calming" scheme would therefore (also) appear to be a realignment of the junction(s) in order to achieve the capacity that they had originally envisaged.

Without provision for cyclists, it will be a bit of a squeeze at busy times, like this junction further down the same road.

EDIT: Are they not required, eg by DMURS, to cater for pedestrians and cyclists in all new projects?

galwaycyclist

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Engineers like these stacking lanes because of their role in maximising junction capacity: would that be a reasonable interpretation?

If so, this "traffic calming" scheme would therefore (also) appear to be a realignment of the junction(s) in order to achieve the capacity that they had originally envisaged.

Without provision for cyclists, it will be a bit of a squeeze at busy times, like this junction further down the same road.

EDIT: Are they not required, eg by DMURS, to cater for pedestrians and cyclists in all new projects?

At the risk of sounding sarcastic the limit on the capacity of the junction for cars is set by the ability of cars to exit it rather than the "reservoir" of cars.

So I think it may be more accurate to say that some engineers dislike the idea of road space being used for purposes other than storing or moving cars.

galwaycyclist

Iwannahurl wrote: »

EDIT: Are they not required, eg by DMURS, to cater for pedestrians and cyclists in all new projects?

Unfortunately the DMURS seems to have been written in a manner that tries to justify, in the name of "traffic calming", lane widths that either;

1. remove road capacity from cyclists or

2. use unprotected human beings on bicycles as a mobile obstruction that slows cars

Iwannahurl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

At the risk of sounding sarcastic the limit on the capacity of the junction for cars is set by the ability of cars to exit it rather than the "reservoir" of cars.

So I think it may be more accurate to say that some engineers dislike the idea of road space being used for purposes other than storing or moving cars.

IIRC I have heard Galway City Council officials referring to the way in which obstacles, such as a stalled vehicle in a road lane perhaps, can "halve the capacity of a junction".

But yes, I would have to agree that allocation of road space to transport modes other than private cars is not yet a high priority.

Presumably Councillors can be lobbied on this proposal?

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

At the risk of sounding sarcastic the limit on the capacity of the junction for cars is set by the ability of cars to exit it rather than the "reservoir" of cars.

So I think it may be more accurate to say that some engineers dislike the idea of road space being used for purposes other than storing or moving cars.

In fact to take this to its logical extension you could argue that engineers who try to pack cars into the road space immediately in front of the junction are in fact reducing the overall capacity of the junction.

Since cyclists who could have proceeded prior to the stacking lanes are now blocked out.

what_traffic

Great thread. Some very useful posts and pictures.
Deadline for submissions is today at 12h00. Submission could only be done via Post.