What should be done with the Salmon Weir bridge?

what_traffic

From todays Connacht Tribune:
http://connachttribune.ie/call-for-action-on-footbridge-across-salmon-weir/

New Bridge? New Footbridge and Cycle Way? Or Ban private car's from using it and make a bus lane out of it? any other solutions from the Galway City folk?

Ban private cars? How about people that need to use it?

snubbleste

Nothing.
Been there for almost 200 years.

biko

Add a footbridge like for Wolf Tone. Currently the bridge footpaths are too narrow for the amount of traffic they get.

thesandeman

Anyone know what they mean where it says 'a buggy landed outside a CIE bus'?

yer man!

City council have been looking at building a parallel traffic only bridge for quite some time now. There was a plan of converting the bridge to pedestrian only and at one stage having a single tram line go over it.

jkforde

yer man! wrote: »

City council have been looking at building a parallel traffic only bridge for quite some time now. There was a plan of converting the bridge to pedestrian only and at one stage having a single tram line go over it.

anyone know what happened to this plan? seems they went so far with plan and then got cold feet... or was it purely 'lack of funds in the current financial year' and then the plan sits on shelf til someone gets injured or killed...

Eeden

I think plans were underway and then the recession hit.

charlie_says

It receives a seriously heavy amount of foot traffic between NUIG/hospital and the town.

Buses and large trucks swinging on to the bridge can swing ridiculously close to the pedestrian areas and sometimes buses in particular swing over it.

The wooden salmon statue on the court house side is a listed structure so that makes it more difficult to build anything there. Also I have heard that there were serious objections to removing that tree on the other side of the road right opposite the salmon.

Getting rid of the SW bridge is obviously a non starter. Another traffic bridge higher up the river to bypass Galway is badly needed and has been for years. At a minimum they should add a pedestrian walkway extension similar to the Wolfe Tone bridge, in my layman opinion.

shruikan2553

The road is too narrow for larger vehicles and the footpath is too narrow because people are unable to figure out how to walk in single file and every week has some idiot who thinks cycling on the footpath is a good idea. Either make a footbridge and then they can make the road a bit wider or make a new bridge for vehicles and make the salmon weir for pedestrians.

TCDStudent1

It needs a foot bridge badly.

It is not just larger vehicles that have a problem. I drive by there in my car fairly often and people walking often step on to the road without looking because somebody has stopped on the footpath and they need to get past them.

what_traffic

Anybody in favour of restricting private motor traffic on it? Highly unlikely it would happen in Ireland but it would seriously alter car traffic patterns on University Rd and Woodquay and make the entire area bus, pedestrian and cyclist friendly.

biko

Hell no. We need more car bridges, not less.

Iwannahurl

What does this mean?

it’s not an easy problem to solve as the river has to be protected.

http://connachttribune.ie/call-for-action-on-footbridge-across-salmon-weir/

A key problem, as is so often the case in Galway, is that there is too much motorised traffic.

For pedestrians and cyclists I would suggest a separate bridge, linked to the existing riverside route and greenway.

As for another bridge further up the river, that should be a greenway across the piers of the former Galway-Clifden rail line. However (if I recall correctly) such a proposal was shot down by private interests several years ago.

what_traffic

biko wrote: »

Hell no. We need more car bridges, not less.

Or else we just need less cars.

Iwannahurl

biko wrote: »

Hell no. We need more car bridges, not less.

Why would we need "more car bridges" when in fact national and EU policy is increasingly oriented towards reducing car use and car dependence?

snubbleste

Iwannahurl

biko

what_traffic wrote: »

Or else we just need less cars.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Why would we need "more car bridges" when in fact national and EU policy is increasingly oriented towards reducing car use and car dependence?

We have a current situation and a proposal of a footbridge in the paper, let's attack the issue from that perspective instead of "how it should be".

Iwannahurl

biko wrote: »

We have a current situation and a proposal of a footbridge in the paper, let's attack the issue from that perspective instead of "how it should be".

Or shouldn't be?

biko wrote: »

Hell no. We need more car bridges, not less.

what_traffic

what_traffic wrote: »

Anybody in favour of restricting private motor traffic on it? Highly unlikely it would happen in Ireland but it would seriously alter car traffic patterns on University Rd and Woodquay and make the entire area bus, pedestrian and cyclist friendly.

Please, about 4 people (who all post here) would be in favour of an nonsensical backwards step like that.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Why would we need "more car bridges" when in fact national and EU policy is increasingly oriented towards reducing car use and car dependence?

Most people don't agree with this stupid anti-car policy, we need more bridges around Galway so car traffic can get around the city easier.

biko

Well, the city centre is already too congested during the day and I don't think banning cars over that bridge will help.
What the article is about is an additional footbridge to protect pedestrians which is an excellent idea as the bridge right now is pretty dangerous for them.

Iwannahurl

I would be in favour of adding capacity for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users, as well as reducing traffic volume, on the route.

These would be mutually reinforcing objectives.

If recent policy decisions are anything to go by, Galway City Council clearly does not believe that the city centre is too congested with motorised traffic.

what_traffic

biko wrote: »

Well, the city centre is already too congested during the day and I don't think banning cars over that bridge will help.
What the article is about is an additional footbridge to protect pedestrians which is an excellent idea as the bridge right now is pretty dangerous for them.

But the car's are creating the congestion? It could help alleviating congestion by removing the capacity of private car's to use it. Could transform Woodquay as well. The article is not just about a proposed footbridge but it also suggests what other idea's that will make the bridge work for the local community and users of the bridge.

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I would be in favour of adding capacity for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users, as well as reducing traffic volume, on the route.
These would be mutually reinforcing objectives.

It could improve bus journey times to the West Side of the City?

what_traffic

what_traffic wrote: »

But the car's are creating the congestion? It could help alleviating congestion by removing the capacity of private car's to use it. Could transform Woodquay as well. The article is not just about a proposed footbridge but it also suggests what other idea's that will make the bridge work for the local community and users of the bridge.

And what about all the people who will be severely affected, people going about their business trying to get across the city? Cars are the most important form of transport and its totally unfair to even suggest making drivers life harder just because you have some crazy hatred for cars.

Luckily the decision makers agree that cars are vitally important and wont hinder their use too much.

These sorts of suggestion actually make me very very angry, I detest the anti-car brigade.

Mrs OBumble

Well I'm part of the reduced car-dependency brigade. (Not anti-car: hell I drove 1100km the other weekend, and a car was the only feasible mode for that trip.)

But even I don't support closing the bridge to private cars at them moment. The elephant in this discussion is the cathedral. Closing that bridge to cars would make it a lot harder for some to get to the cathedral, specially given how narrow the roadway is on Nuns Island. Likely it would make the overall traffic situation worse.

There's also the small matter of hospital access from the central city and in the even of a crash on the Quin Bridge.

And buses are actually part of the problem: as two-lane, the bridge is just too small for them.

IMHO what should happen is a 2nd bridge nearby, and make them both one-way. But good luck with selling that idea to the private interests mentioned above.

what_traffic

Landyn Rough Cowgirl wrote: »

And what about all the people who will be severely affected, people going about their business trying to get across the city? Cars are the most important form of transport and its totally unfair to even suggest making drivers life harder just because you have some crazy hatred for cars.

Luckily the decision makers agree that cars are vitally important and wont hinder their use too much.

These sorts of suggestion actually make me very very angry, I detest the anti-car brigade.

I don't have a hatred of cars. I own one myself. Stop with your nonsense and deal with your anger issues somewhere else.

MarysCurtins

Landyn Rough Cowgirl wrote: »

These sorts of suggestion actually make me very very angry, I detest the anti-car brigade.

Why get angry? It just their opinion. I find it funny that suggesting closing one of the 4 crossing points of the river could actually help alleviate congestion, a partial closure on any of the main routes (like a lane) for roadworks causes things to get even worse around the city than normal as is. Considering transport / commuting / infrastructure is something some people seem to have a keen interest in i'd have thought this would be easy to see, it makes it look like there is little understanding of the subject.

A pedestrian bridge and the removal of the footpaths would be best. It would be the safest option for pedestrians / cyclists because as mentioned the paths are narrow and people step onto the road without looking, buses can also be a danger to pedestrians occasionally when they swing around the corner from the courthouse, the front of the bus would cut onto the footpath slightly depending on how much space the bus driver has to work with in the other lane, cyclists will have more room and not be forced to cycle on the footpath.

what_traffic

what_traffic wrote: »

Or else we just need less cars.

In theory less cars would be great.

However, in a city and country with an inadequate transport system it isn't feasible.

I'd happily use public transport Monday - Friday for work but alas there's none

Goofy

If you close this bridge to traffic the only access to nuns island by car is the university Road. A lot of people live on nuns island, you can't cut them off from the city like that. That would in fact ruin the area as nobody would want to live there anymore.

Iwannahurl

Landyn Rough Cowgirl wrote: »

And what about all the people who will be severely affected, people going about their business trying to get across the city? Cars are the most important form of transport and its totally unfair to even suggest making drivers life harder just because you have some crazy hatred for cars.

Luckily the decision makers agree that cars are vitally important and wont hinder their use too much.

These sorts of suggestion actually make me very very angry, I detest the anti-car brigade.

I have a car, and just recently spent over €500 to tax it.

There is nothing vitally important about my car at all, or yours, or most people's for that matter.

The stated goal of Government transport policy is to reduce private car dependence from 65% to 45% for commuting by 2020. Smarter Travel, which is entirely predicated on modal shift away from private car use, is still official Council policy.

All road schemes, including local ones such as plans relating to the Salmon Weir Bridge, should be compatible with local and national transport policy, and also with urgent international imperatives such as the mitigation of climate change. That's what I would call important.

MarysCurtins wrote: »

I find it funny that suggesting closing one of the 4 crossing points of the river could actually help alleviate congestion, a partial closure on any of the main routes (like a lane) for roadworks causes things to get even worse around the city than normal as is.

Roadworks cause acute congestion, but if they're ongoing people adjust. There's a saying in traffic engineering: it'll be alright by Friday.

Over the longer term, reducing capacity for cars (overall) reduces traffic, in the same way that increasing capacity for cars increases traffic. It's not just a matter of closing roads, however. With proper Transportation Demand Management the same road space can be used much more efficiently.

Goofy wrote: »

If you close this bridge to traffic the only access to nuns island by car is the university Road. A lot of people live on nuns island, you can't cut them off from the city like that. That would in fact ruin the area as nobody would want to live there anymore.

How could people who live in Nun's Island be cut off from the city, when they're already living in the city?

Reducing traffic in the area could actually have the opposite effect to the one you suggest. Greater walkability generally correlates with higher property values, and in any case many people living in the city centre either do not own cars or else do not use their cars for commuting within the city.

galwaycyclist

Goofy wrote: »

If you close this bridge to traffic the only access to nuns island by car is the university Road. A lot of people live on nuns island, you can't cut them off from the city like that. That would in fact ruin the area as nobody would want to live there anymore.

I don't think anyone has suggested closing the bridge to traffic. Just closing it to private traffic. So public transport, ambulances, cyclists pedestrians, wheelchair users would still have access.

Closing city centre bridges to private traffic is standard practice in other historic cities and has been since the 1970s/1980s.

As has already been pointed out traffic free areas attract a premium as places to live and work.

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I don't think anyone has suggested closing the bridge to traffic. Just closing it to private traffic. So public transport, ambulances, cyclists pedestrians, wheelchair users would still have access.

Closing city centre bridges to private traffic is standard practice in other historic cities and has been since the 1970s/1980s.

As has already been pointed out traffic free areas attract a premium as places to live and work.

Have the other historic cities with closed city centres good transport systems?

Rail, tram bus?

Otherwise it's pointless. Galway atm needs more roads not less.

Upgrade the transport system and then close roads if needs be.

It's definitely an Irish thing to put the cart before the horse

shruikan2553

For reducing the number of cars, the carrot is better than the stick. Supply decent and cheap public transport instead of just making it awkward for driving. At the moment people are told to live on the side of the river they plan to work on. The bridges are just bottlenecks and closing 1 means traffic will be diverted to another already congested bridge.

That's also ignoring that buses are one of the bigger problems with the bridge already.

Mrs OBumble

rarnes1 wrote: »

... Galway atm needs more roads not less.
.....It's definitely an Irish thing to put the cart before the horse

Ironically you're right about the last sentence, even if that's not exactly what you mean.

I have no links, but have certainly read that Ireland has a higher proportion of its land mass devoted to roading than anywhere else in Europe. And since the Romans didn't get here, I would indeed put this down to the the Irish putting the cart before the horse!

galwaycyclist wrote: »

As has already been pointed out traffic free areas attract a premium as places to live and work.

However there has also been research showing that anti-social behaviour flourishes in traffic-free areas that don't have a high pedestrian density. So for example Shop St in Galway works 'cos there are almost always people walking up and down, providing pretty much the same passive surveillance as passing traffic. Market Square (or whatever it's called) in Tralee is not such a great idea at night, because there aren't the same levels.

I would not like to be walking down a traffic-free Nuns Island at night.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I have a car, and just recently spent over €500 to tax it.

There is nothing vitally important about my car at all, or yours, or most people's for that matter.

Well I completely disagree, a car is vitally important for me.

what_traffic

yer man! wrote: »

City council have been looking at building a parallel traffic only bridge for quite some time now. There was a plan of converting the bridge to pedestrian only and at one stage having a single tram line go over it.

Anybody know why the Salmon Weir Bridge and St Vincent's Avenue were not aligned in the first place? Were the Court House and Town Hall Buildings built before or after the bridge?

snubbleste

what_traffic wrote: »

Anybody know why the Salmon Weir Bridge and St Vincent's Avenue were not aligned in the first place? Were the Court House and Town Hall Buildings built before or after the bridge?

The bridge was built to facilitate transport (horse n cart, pedestrian) between the courthouse and the goal (now cathedral).
All those oil hungry machines came afterwards

WallyGUFC

In that plan to build a parallel bridge. Would it not be better to build it downstream of the SW Bridge, instead of upstream? This would remove the bend there at the courthouse - I'd have thought there is just enough space to do this (come from Woodquay, straight through the lights and then straight on over the bridge instead of having to negotiate the "chicane" behind the courthouse). Or is there a building on the Cathedral side that would get in the way of this?

Anyway, considering the large pedestrian traffic there, a new footbridge or boardwalk would be good, and remove the footpaths on the existing bridge to increase space. IWannahurl's proposed pedestrian bridge on the old train line is a good idea too as it would take a lot of the NUIG pedestrian traffic away from the SW Bridge area safely. Who are the private interests against this?

gordongekko

WallyGUFC wrote: »

In that plan to build a parallel bridge. Would it not be better to build it downstream of the SW Bridge, instead of upstream? This would remove the bend there at the courthouse - I'd have thought there is just enough space to do this (come from Woodquay, straight through the lights and then straight on over the bridge instead of having to negotiate the "chicane" behind the courthouse). Or is there a building on the Cathedral side that would get in the way of this?

That is the plan. You are looking at the map back to front

WallyGUFC

gordongekko wrote: »

That is the plan. You are looking at the map back to front

....:cool:

It's been a long week!

cferrie

yer man! wrote: »

City council have been looking at building a parallel traffic only bridge for quite some time now. There was a plan of converting the bridge to pedestrian only and at one stage having a single tram line go over it.

you might have given credit for using my image

Full details of my proposal can be seen here for anyone interested bit[dot]ly/1WeF2aV (sorry you'll have to fill in the dot, I'm not allowed to post links)

yer man!

cferrie wrote: »

you might have given credit for using my image

Apologies, I just grabbed this from Google Imags. Thought it was the similar as one I saw in the newspaper.

cferrie

yer man! wrote: »

Apologies, I just grabbed this from Google Imags. Thought it was the similar as one I saw in the newspaper.

No problem - it's a shame the Council seems to have put all their eggs into the Bypass basket to the detriment of other more incremental improvements that could be made to traffic movement in the city.

yer man!

GCC seem to be pretty bad at it alright, the traffic control system is pretty much just mothballed and there's very little if any improvements to any roads around the city in the last few years, sure the signs that say the right lane in the docks is closed ahead were up only a few weeks ago!

nuac

Pity not to use the piers of the old railway bridge.

It could provide access for cyclists and pedestrians UCG/City, and may in time link up with the Connemara Greenway

yer man!

nuac wrote: »

Pity not to use the piers of the old railway bridge.

It could provide access for cyclists and pedestrians UCG/City, and may in time link up with the Connemara Greenway

There was a plan for that too about a decade ago for a pedestrian/cycle bridge but the funding never materialised.

galwaycyclist

yer man! wrote: »

There was a plan for that too about a decade ago for a pedestrian/cycle bridge but the funding never materialised.

Hmm thats not my understanding of what happened. The story I recall at the time was that the funding** was on the table but that the boat club objected to walkers and people on bikes passing over their property.

**it was supposed to be one of the millennium projects

cferrie

That was my understanding too - but there is now a bridge further downstream linking the campus to Fisheries Field (across the Eglinton Canal) which is an improvement.

yer man!

I did hear that alright too but I doubt that would really have caused it not to go ahead, it would have been in the interest of the boat club to have a bridge linking the area with town.