What should be done with the Salmon Weir bridge?

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.

Bobeagleburger

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.

nuac

galwaycyclist wrote: »

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

Members of the Boat Club should not be so precious.

After all other users of the Corrib do not object to their use of the river and lake.

Zzippy

nuac wrote: »

Members of the Boat Club should not be so precious.

After all other users of the Corrib do not object to their use of the river and lake.

I think the boat club turned down an offer by the college to buy their property and relocate them further upriver. Part of what the college intended to do with the property might have included rebuilding the bridge, but I don't think the club specifically turned down the bridge. If they did though, they were within their rights.

Also, that's like saying I don't object to your use of the public footpath, so we should build a bridge over your house. What right would anyone have to object to their use of the Corrib?