Galway traffic

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

What's the chance of the City Council actually moving on these projects this year and using the funding?

So the first list, 18 items are all either ready for implementation or at some stages of development or are the active travel portion of larger projects.

Some of those have been on the long finger for years but this funding now moves them forward.

The second list, these are all "New Projects", well.....apparently these are "New Projects" except some of them aren't. For example:

The Moycullen to Galway greenway received €2 mil funding in 2014. It should also be noted that this also received €1.8 mil in funding last November too. So this "New Project" has received a total of €3.9 mil in funding over the last 7 years.

Just to note, the Clifden Pedestrian and Cycle bridge, if I understand correctly, this is the new crossing using the old rail line pillars. If thats correct, then this is part of the Moycullen greenway project too. The €125k allocated for this is likely for survey, design and feasibility work.

The Barna to Galway greenway is floating about for probably just as long but has never received a cent so this would appear to be the start of getting this going though if the Moycullen one above is anything to go by I'll be retired before this is started.

The Parkmore projects likely form part of the plans already in motion for Parkmore rd just this funding pays for those parts but I hope I'm wrong.

The one thing I am expecting to be disappointed by is the use of the paint brush. There is no doubt in my mind that we're going to get crappy and dangerous painted lanes as part of some of these projects. I hope I'm wrong but I'm not expecting to be.

GY A1

GY A1 wrote: »

Any funding for the county ?

This announcement was focused on city projects, rural / town/ village project funding is due to be announced in a few weeks

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Barna to Galway greenway is floating about for probably just as long but has never received a cent so this would appear to be the start of getting this going though if the Moycullen one above is anything to go by I'll be retired before this is started.

This was designed with funding in 2016, there's drawings ready for the full route.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

This was designed with funding in 2016, there's drawings ready for the full route.

Wow, I missed that and I searched. I could find mention through various council documents back to 2016 alright, but nothing indicating there was funding provided for the design. Great if there was and even better if they used those funds, in which case this funding would be to take it to planning one would hope

Mrs OBumble

GY A1 wrote: »

Any funding for the county ?

Remind me where Barna, Moycullen, Clifden, Oughterard are located?

Also the Tuam Rd bus lane is primarily in the county.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Wow, I missed that and I searched. I could find mention through various council documents back to 2016 alright, but nothing indicating there was funding provided for the design. Great if there was and even better if they used those funds, in which case this funding would be to take it to planning one would hope

Well they call it a "Preliminary Report on the Proposed Barna Greenway" but it has drawings for the full route, completed by Atkins. Might need to be reviewed with any changes along the route since and some discussions needed around lane use. But hopefully they'll use this funding to push it forward.

Storm 10

After a small fortune was spent doing the road in Domnick st I could not believe the condition it's in every manhole cover has sunk below ground level it's the same past Monroe's, do the Council ever check what's done they will all have to be reset.

GY A1

Have a look again,
All this funding will be spent in the city,
Some mention routes or directions of projects but the works will be within city council,
Btw applications for funding was sought from all local authorities,

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Remind me where Barna, Moycullen, Clifden, Oughterard are located?

Also the Tuam Rd bus lane is primarily in the county.

A trial cycle lane in Salthill was discussed in the Dail yesterday...

https://twitter.com/GalwayCycling/status/1360152810759847936

what_traffic

Deleted User wrote: »

A trial cycle lane in Salthill was discussed in the Dail yesterday...

https://twitter.com/GalwayCycling/status/1360152810759847936

Here is the question/statement that was posed by Catherine Connolly TD/Leas Ceann Comhairle
https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2021-02-10a.207#g293
scroll down to see the response of the Minister (some of which is in that video)

More permeability issues in Galway

https://twitter.com/neasabh/status/1360235200635162634?s=20

what_traffic

Deleted User wrote: »

More permeability issues in Galway

https://twitter.com/neasabh/status/1360235200635162634?s=20

One of very many unfortunately. South Park in the Claddagh is classic Galway City Council. Council install cycle lane on the footpath (ya thats really poorly designed as well) and then places kissing gates either end of it.

Mrs OBumble

what_traffic wrote: »

One of very many unfortunately. South Park in the Claddagh is classic Galway City Council. Council install cycle lane on the footpath (ya thats really poorly designed as well) and then places kissing gates either end of it.

Was it not the other was round, ie pedestrian walkway was there first?

I'm sure I walked that path years ago when there was no bike lane.

what_traffic

what_traffic wrote: »

One of very many unfortunately. South Park in the Claddagh is classic Galway City Council. Council install cycle lane on the footpath (ya thats really poorly designed as well) and then places kissing gates either end of it.

That one is truly stupid and irritates the hell out of me everytime I go there either on foot or bike.

what_traffic

Deleted User wrote: »

That one is truly stupid and irritates the hell out of me everytime I go there either on foot or bike.

Bishop O Donnell Road is another good example. Council put in decent cycling infrastructure along it and Seamus Quirke Road in 2012 but then block access to that cycling infrastructure for the residents of Bun na Caise (https://goo.gl/maps/Ndw27hgUAQptHbTL6) and Friars Hill (https://goo.gl/maps/sBG5MctjYxpyP7H17 with Kissing gates.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Was it not the other was round, ie pedestrian walkway was there first?

Does it matter? If the gates were first then they should have been replaced when the cycle lane was put in.

"What's not to like?"

Would like to see how it went a minute before and after this...

https://twitter.com/CloHiggins/status/1291291148754001921?s=19

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

"What's not to like?"

Would like to see how it went a minute before and after this...

https://twitter.com/CloHiggins/status/1291291148754001921?s=19

The replies to her tweet are glorious lol

That was just a few weeks after she voted against a cycle lane in Salthill, even though "Extension of Cycle Paths to Salthill/Knocknacarra" and "Development of Cycle Lanes and Greenways" are part of her Vision when running for election.
http://clodaghhiggins.ie/my-vision/

Mrs OBumble

Deleted User wrote: »

Does it matter? If the gates were first then they should have been replaced when the cycle lane was put in.

Or the cycle lane should have been put in another place, where it didn't detract from the safe facility which had been provided for pedestrians.

what_traffic wrote: »

Bishop O Donnell Road is another good example. Council put in decent cycling infrastructure along it and Seamus Quirke Road in 2012 but then block access to that cycling infrastructure for the residents of Bun na Caise (https://goo.gl/maps/Ndw27hgUAQptHbTL6) and Friars Hill (https://goo.gl/maps/sBG5MctjYxpyP7H17 with Kissing gates.

Both of those examples are of pedestrian paths: bicycles should not be on them, and's why the gates are there. Agree they're difficult for buggy-pushers - but that's the price of makng the paths safe for older people. Bicycles can user the regular roads to access those estates.

donvito99

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Both of those examples are of pedestrian paths: bicycles should not be on them, and's why the gates are there. Agree they're difficult for buggy-pushers - but that's the price of makng the paths safe for older people. Bicycles can user the regular roads to access those estates.

How do these gates make matters safer for "old people"? And why don't they make things safer for everything else?

What about old people with frames or push chairs? They now have a big chicane to navigate.

These designs are ludicrous. If you're concerned with speeding cyclists, motorcyclists on paths, punish them and not everyone else.

zell12

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Both of those examples are of pedestrian paths: bicycles should not be on them, and's why the gates are there. Agree they're difficult for buggy-pushers - but that's the price of makng the paths safe for older people. Bicycles can user the regular roads to access those estates.

My head hurts

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Or the cycle lane should have been put in another place, where it didn't detract from the safe facility which had been provided for pedestrians.

Didn't take long for another anti-cycling post lol

In your own special, roundabout sorta way, thank you for acknowledging that paint is not protection. Good to see you understand how dangerous it is for bike users on the roads where this is the only thing separating them from metal boxes weighing several tonnes traveling at speed.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Both of those examples are of pedestrian paths: bicycles should not be on them, and's why the gates are there. Agree they're difficult for buggy-pushers - but that's the price of making the paths safe for older people. Bicycles can user the regular roads to access those estates.

So screw everyone else cos it isn't an issue for you?

You also left out that they are a significant issue for the disabled, elderly, young children, those with mobility scooters etc

I'm honestly thrilled to see a concerted campaign to get rid of these things to improve permeability throughout the city.

what_traffic

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Both of those examples are of pedestrian paths: bicycles should not be on them, and's why the gates are there.

You sound like the now retired Galway City Council Roads Engineer who once said at a public meeting; Just because we build a bus lane, does not mean we have to facilitate buses to use it.

Mrs OBumble

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Didn't take long for another anti-cycling post lol

In your own special, roundabout sorta way, thank you for acknowledging that paint is not protection. Good to see you understand how dangerous it is for bike users on the roads where this is the only thing separating them from metal boxes weighing several tonnes traveling at speed.



So screw everyone else cos it isn't an issue for you?

You also left out that they are a significant issue for the disabled, elderly, young children, those with mobility scooters etc

I'm honestly thrilled to see a concerted campaign to get rid of these things to improve permeability throughout the city.

Not anti cycling, just pro pedestrian.

Of course paint is not protection, ffs.

Moderate speed two wheelers should ideally have their own grade-separated lanes (and parking) everywhere.

But they should NEVER use pedestrian spaces, and they have proven over and over that prevention measures are necessary. Kissing Gates protect the elderly, young and mobility impaired.

xckjoo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Not anti cycling, just pro pedestrian.

Of course paint is not protection, ffs.

Moderate speed two wheelers should ideally have their own grade-separated lanes (and parking) everywhere.

But they should NEVER use pedestrian spaces, and they have proven over and over that prevention measures are necessary. Kissing Gates protect the elderly, young and mobility impaired.

Ah. No offence but you're definitely anti cyclist.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Kissing Gates protect the elderly, young and mobility impaired.

How?

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Not anti cycling, just pro pedestrian.

I thought you were anti pedestrianisation?

A bike trip with kids from the Headford rd, through the city and out to Salthill, shouldn't be a hard or unsafe thing to do, right?

https://twitter.com/Sniipe/status/1361082918781788162

https://twitter.com/Sniipe/status/1361083150051508224

https://twitter.com/Sniipe/status/1361083249368444928

https://twitter.com/Sniipe/status/1361083615162023940

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Moderate speed two wheelers should ideally have their own grade-separated lanes (and parking) everywhere.

First you acknowledge paint isnt protection and now you support protected cycle lanes.....who are you and what have you done with the real Mr's O