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

Public Meeting re. Kirwan Roundabout

24

Comments

  • #32
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,322 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I don't see what your point is. One thing has nothing to do with the other

    They held a public meeting to get feedback, they got the feedback and are going to alter the plans based on that same feedback

    Seriously, no pleasing some people :rolleyes:

    Lets look at this from a logical point of view.
    Having public meetings and using feedback from those meetings is a good thing, no doubt.
    HOWEVER - this whole scheme (the replacement of roundabouts will signalled junctions) is completely reliant on ALL the roundabouts being replaced. Otherwise the system wont work properly.

    One would have thought, that before starting the first roundabout-signal they would have had meetings with the public to highlight any potential issues, thus all issues were ironed out at the planning phase before any work had begun on the project.
    Now, this particular roundabout could be the last one to get done, months behind the rest, negating the "benefit" of this controlled system.


  • #33
    yer man!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭yer man!


    kippy wrote: »
    Lets look at this from a logical point of view.
    Having public meetings and using feedback from those meetings is a good thing, no doubt.
    HOWEVER - this whole scheme (the replacement of roundabouts will signalled junctions) is completely reliant on ALL the roundabouts being replaced. Otherwise the system wont work properly.

    One would have thought, that before starting the first roundabout-signal they would have had meetings with the public to highlight any potential issues, thus all issues were ironed out at the planning phase before any work had begun on the project.
    Now, this particular roundabout could be the last one to get done, months behind the rest, negating the "benefit" of this controlled system.
    I think they wanted to do just that but if they delayed the scheme any longer the funding for said scheme would have been retracted so they (the council) had very little choice. Same thing happened with the greenway to connemara, funding was provided and then retracted at the end on 2011 as it had not been claimed because thing wasn't fully planned so they couldn't claim. There's a lot of flaws with this rigid system.


  • #34
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,322 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    yer man! wrote: »
    I think they wanted to do just that but if they delayed the scheme any longer the funding for said scheme would have been retracted so they (the council) had very little choice. Same thing happened with the greenway to connemara, funding was provided and then retracted at the end on 2011 as it had not been claimed because thing wasn't fully planned so they couldn't claim. There's a lot of flaws with this rigid system.
    Are these flaws or just incompetence at work?

    If you were to use the excuse above, you would have to ask, when was the funding applied for (I assume it had to be applied for)?
    Surely the request for funding could have been built into the project plan and all times for these meetings, designs etc built around this?

    I agree to an extent, the system is too rigid however when you look at the gross time and money overspends that have happened in the past decades when it comes to work that has been undertaken in this city, you have to ask yourself, are these jobs being properly project managed, properly scoped and properly planned?
    I have no confidence in any major (or even small piece of work - bus shelter in Parkmore for an example) done in this city as a result of what has happened in the past number of years and to blame it all on budgetary issues is to be overly kind to those who have been involved in planning and execution.


  • #35
    KevR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    kippy wrote: »
    Lets look at this from a logical point of view.
    Having public meetings and using feedback from those meetings is a good thing, no doubt.
    HOWEVER - this whole scheme (the replacement of roundabouts will signalled junctions) is completely reliant on ALL the roundabouts being replaced. Otherwise the system wont work properly.
    I have said all along that there is no point in doing the Galway Shopping Centre roundabout if the Menlo Park roundabout is not done also. At peak times, traffic backs up all the way along the Headford Road from the Menlo Park roundabout and it blocks the flow of traffic on the Galway SC roundabout.

    The Menlo Park junction can't handle the volume of traffic that is currently being pushed through from the Galway SC roundabout. It would make no sense to upgrade the Shopping Centre junction and increase throughput.
    The Menlo Park roundabout has to be upgraded also.

    Just me, but I don't see anything wrong with the proposed design..


  • #36
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    KevR wrote: »
    Just me, but I don't see anything wrong with the proposed design..

    It's not clear from the tiny drawing that was in the paper, but it looks like they're moving the exit from Menlo maybe 100m out the Headford Rd. It'll be like the entrance to Liosban & Riverside if they're not careful.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    KevR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    antoobrien wrote: »
    It's not clear from the tiny drawing that was in the paper, but it looks like they're moving the exit from Menlo maybe 100m out the Headford Rd. It'll be like the entrance to Liosban & Riverside if they're not careful.

    http://www.galwaynews.ie/24935-city-council-backs-down-%E2%80%98power-people%E2%80%99
    Click on the small image in the article to get a larger image.

    I don't think there will be a set of lights at the Menlo / Headford Road junction.


  • #38
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    KevR wrote: »
    http://www.galwaynews.ie/24935-city-council-backs-down-%E2%80%98power-people%E2%80%99
    Click on the small image in the article to get a larger image.

    I don't think there will be a set of lights at the Menlo / Headford Road junction.

    A jaysus that's worse than parkmore used to be before they put the lights in over 5 years years ago - traffic on the Monviea Rd use to prevent right turns to get to the dual carriageway. This will prevent the residents from accessing the N6.


  • #39
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    If they want to fix this a possible compromise would be to consolidate the entrances to Sandyvale & Tirellan Heights into one entrance controlled by lights. Instead of sending the Castlewn/Crestwood traffic over onto the HR, divert it onto the road along the front of Tirellan Heights (road improvements probably required)

    Here's a couple of options they could use


  • #40
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Here's a couple of options they could use

    Yes the red link was in the "alternatives" that they considered but they went for the black and priority only - no traffic lights.

    This was considered to be manifestly dangerous by several contributors at the meeting.


  • #41
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Yes the red link was in the "alternatives" that they considered but they went for the black and priority only - no traffic lights.

    This was considered to be manifestly dangerous by several contributors at the meeting.

    Which one the proposed (black) route or the other(s)?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    They could go to the yellow junction and signalise Sandyvale along with it.


  • #43
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    They could go to the yellow junction and signalise Sandyvale along with it.

    That one has a problem in that the traffic would be brought past the school (located between the Red & Yellow junction options).

    Edit: location of school added to map for visibility in map mode.


  • #44
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Ah!, is that where it is. Point taken.


  • #45
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    It appears that the city council suggested a load linking the Liosban estate to BNT, creating a new junction - the businesses were not impressed.

    There's no indication of where the new jucntion may go, but here are a couple of possibilities.

    Now the city council are throwing the toys out of the pram because people are telling them what they think.


  • #46
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    The yellow option is the most likely Anto. Ciarán Hayes fair got busy bossing his councillors around didn't he. :) The howling has moved across from the residents on the Castlelawn side to the businesses in the Liosbán.


  • #47
    what_traffic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,313 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    antoobrien wrote: »
    It appears that the city council suggested a load linking the Liosban estate to BNT, creating a new junction - the businesses were not impressed.

    There's no indication of where the new jucntion may go, but here are a couple of possibilities.

    Now the city council are throwing the toys out of the pram because people are telling them what they think.

    Agree re your "toys out of pram" they are always using that excuse. I say your on the money re the possibilities, probably the yellow route. Any links or how would one view the "8" suggested plans mentioned in the last Sentinel (paper edition)


  • #48
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    what_traffic wrote: »
    Agree re your "toys out of pram" they are always using that excuse. I say your on the money re the possibilities, probably the yellow route. Any links or how would one view the "8" suggested plans mentioned in the last Sentinel (paper edition)

    Sorry, can't see anything on the Galway city website (then again I couldn't get anything about the original plans either).


  • #49
    yer man!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭yer man!


    So this means another set of lights on a national primary road then? great.... if they connected the castlelawn road into the headford road and signalised that junction before it gets to the N6 would that not work? Surely if traffic is seen to move better through the junction in plan A then there would be less ppl using the dyke road as a shortcut so this road would be much quieter. The sandyroad exit would be used just as much as it is now, which is a lot. Would the N6 not run more efficiently if it is running straight through the junction rather than making a turn like From the Dublin road to College road in moneenageisha? I think they may make a disaster of this junction.


  • #50
    Leonard Hofstadter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Leonard Hofstadter


    Some day they will get rid of the Joyce roundabout as well - now that is one pain in the you know what to negotiate in busy traffic, especially if you need to use the inside lane!


  • #51
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    yer man! wrote: »
    So this means another set of lights on a national primary road then?

    Yup.
    yer man! wrote: »
    great.... if they connected the castlelawn road into the headford road and signalised that junction before it gets to the N6 would that not work?

    No they want to turn it into a 4 arm junction (it's 5 now, due to the Sandy Rd) - they can't do that without closing either Castlelawn or Sandy Rd. Personally I don't see why they can't turn it into a proper signal controlled RAB, like Lisenhall on the M3 or the M3/M50 jnunction (which is still in operation, as well as the new freeflow junctions).

    yer man! wrote: »
    Surely if traffic is seen to move better through the junction in plan A then there would be less ppl using the dyke road as a shortcut so this road would be much quieter.

    The dyke rd traffic isn't the problem here, the objections are from the local residents. Under the orignal plan they were going to be effectively cut off from the headford Rd. The design of the new junction was piss poor.
    yer man! wrote: »
    The sandyroad exit would be used just as much as it is now, which is a lot.

    Personally I think they should close off this road entirely, but the businesses in the area think that'll screw up their business.
    yer man! wrote: »
    Would the N6 not run more efficiently if it is running straight through the junction rather than making a turn like From the Dublin road to College road in moneenageisha? I think they may make a disaster of this junction.

    The junction is currently a right turn, what they're trying to do is make it into a straight on in the same style as Briarhill.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Now the councillors have told Hayes to stop telling 'his' councillors how to vote all the time. :D

    http://www.galwaynews.ie/25281-council-%E2%80%98divide-and-conquer%E2%80%99-ploy-slammed
    Senior city officials have been accused of operating a “divide and conquer” policy in relation to the contentious plan to convert the Kirwan Roundabout near the Menlo Park Hotel into a signalised junction as part of the Galway Traffic Management Plan.

    After backing down in the face of public opposition to plans for a slip road at Menlo Park over three weeks ago, officials faced more opposition this week when local businesses opposed a ‘Plan B’ which would have cut the Sandy Road and Liosban off from the junction.

    Officials have also come under fire from the Mayor of Galway, Hildegarde Naughton, for discussing plans for the roundabout with local area representatives when, she believes, they should be discussed with every local representative in the city.

    It ain't easy being one of Ciarán Hayes' and Joe Tanseys councillors, that for sure. :D


  • #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,250 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Personally I don't see why they can't turn it into a proper signal controlled RAB, like Lisenhall on the M3 or the M3/M50 jnunction (which is still in operation, as well as the new freeflow junctions).
    The reason given at the meeting is that the roundabout isn't big enough to accommodate it, that it isn't pedestrian or cyclist friendly (and I think that it was said it wouldn't integrate with the control center)
    antoobrien wrote: »
    It appears that the city council suggested a load linking the Liosban estate to BNT, creating a new junction - the businesses were not impressed.

    There's no indication of where the new jucntion may go, but here are a couple of possibilities.
    Those were essentially some of the options presented at the meeting - the yellow line was further up. The negatives were that each one would create a new junction on the N6 and two would require bridges to be built.

    There was also a suggestion that keeping both the Menlo and Headford road entrances on the one side of the new junction wouldn't be safe or easy to engineer - something about sight-lines.

    I think that the current plan will come to a vote and that it will be approved for the greater good of the city.

    The people of Castlelawn and Menlo will benefit from less rat running once both the Menlo and Tesco roundabouts are done.


  • #54
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The reason given at the meeting is that the roundabout isn't big enough to accommodate it,

    Sounds reasonable.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    that it isn't pedestrian or cyclist friendly (and I think that it was said it wouldn't integrate with the control center)

    Horsecrap, if they can't integrate lights there, I'd love to know how they're going to integrate lights anywhere. Making excuses, rather than explaining decision.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Those were essentially some of the options presented at the meeting - the yellow line was further up. The negatives were that each one would create a new junction on the N6 and two would require bridges to be built.

    Nice to know my guesses were somewhat accurate.

    Why two bridges, there's only 1 stream there?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    There was also a suggestion that keeping both the Menlo and Headford road entrances on the one side of the new junction wouldn't be safe or easy to engineer - something about sight-lines.

    Not sure what to think about that - it's a set of traffic lights ffs, they're designed to stop vehicles in order to let other ones proceed.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I think that the current plan will come to a vote and that it will be approved for the greater good of the city.

    Greater good of hynes more like, this is being railroaded, the people don't like it and they know it.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    The people of Castlelawn and Menlo will benefit from less rat running once both the Menlo and Tesco roundabouts are done.

    The dyke road rat run isn't the issue - it's the access to the road from the estate. Take a look at the map picture earlier in the thread, the residents of Castlelawn won't have an effective right turn and it's too close to the junction to put another set of lights.

    If anything the sandy road is the bigger rat run, allowing traffic to avoid both BNT & cemetary cross. Ever noticed how hard it can be to get off BNT with the traffic coming from the trappers inn?


  • #55
    KevR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Personally I think they should close off this road entirely, but the businesses in the area think that'll screw up their business.

    Or how about a free-flowing partial LILO junction to/from the Westbound side somewhere around the yellow line in your diagram.

    Traffic wanting to get onto the N6 Eastbound from the Liosban Estate can go via the Tuam Rd and same goes for traffic trying to get to the Liosban Estate from the N6 Eastbound.


  • #56
    yer man!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭yer man!


    I'd imagine they would just go ahead with blocking off the castlelawn exit and routing the road to the Headford rd as originally planned and signalize that T junction. This is possible to do and congestion backing onto the N6 would be avoided with correct sequencing. It's the most efficient option for the N6 as more maneuvers can be made simultaneously by having the major road running directly through an intersection with two minor road running through it either side at right angle like in Briarhill. If two minor roads were on one side of the major road then the major road would have to remain red for a longer period of time for more maneuvers to be made on the 2 roads as not as many maneuvers can be done at the same time it's also the cheapest option. If the Sandyroad exit was to be blocked off and a new road created it would cross through a parkland (would probably need rezoning) and would require a bridge for the stream (too expensive). Also more traffic would use the Terryland park which would be a nightmare. If you ever see the sandyroad exit it is in constant heavy use whereas the castlelawn exit is still busy but not always. That road is used as a rat run also, you cannot deny that so it's hard to gauge how many of these cars are from ppl living in the area. By making the N6 more efficient the rat running would be reduced and traffic congestion there should decrease.


  • #57
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    yer man! wrote: »
    I'd imagine they would just go ahead with blocking off the castlelawn exit and routing the road to the Headford rd as originally planned and signalize that T junction. This is possible to do and congestion backing onto the N6 would be avoided with correct sequencing.

    Far too close to the N6 junction to be practical - by the looks of the map it's even close together than Briarhill & Parkmore or Liosban & Riverside
    yer man! wrote: »
    It's the most efficient option for the N6 as more maneuvers can be made simultaneously by having the major road running directly through an intersection with two minor road running through it either side at right angle like in Briarhill. If two minor roads were on one side of the major road then the major road would have to remain red for a longer period of time for more maneuvers to be made on the 2 roads as not as many maneuvers can be done at the same time it's also the cheapest option.

    Apples & Oranges - the N6 here is effectively the minor road that's splitting he N84 mas the major road (this was the original layout).
    yer man! wrote: »
    If the Sandyroad exit was to be blocked off and a new road created it would cross through a parkland (would probably need rezoning) and would require a bridge for the stream (too expensive). Also more traffic would use the Terryland park which would be a nightmare.

    Terrlyland Park? You mean the Dyke road coming around to Castlelawn?- No the "improvement" works on this combind with Bodkin in theory will render that rat run (which is already a nightmare) less practical.
    yer man! wrote: »
    If you ever see the sandyroad exit it is in constant heavy use whereas the castlelawn exit is still busy but not always. That road is used as a rat run also, you cannot deny that so it's hard to gauge how many of these cars are from ppl living in the area. By making the N6 more efficient the rat running would be reduced and traffic congestion there should decrease.

    Between Cemetery Cross and the trappers there's about half the amount of houses as are in Castlelanw, Crestwood & Ballinfoyle. There's a large retail park, which is why the city council want to keep this open - rates, they don't get any from the households, so don't mind pissing them off. Otherwise most of the traffic is rat running through Liosban (easy enough to stop the cars that don't turn off on front of or behind you). You'll get from Tuam Rd though into Dunnes and onto the Headford Rd far quicker than by using Sean Mulvoy Rd (if there's any kind of traffic I'll use this way instead of either BNT or Sean Mulvoy to get to the QB).


  • #58
    what_traffic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,313 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Apples & Oranges - the N6 here is effectively the minor road that's splitting he N84 mas the major road (this was the original layout).

    Any traffic counter no's for the current roundabout - similar to the ones in the report for Bodkin http://www.galwaycity.ie/GeneralNews/281011_02.pdf goto page 6. This would show where the apples and oranges fall.


  • #59
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    what_traffic wrote: »
    Any traffic counter no's for the current roundabout - similar to the ones in the report for Bodkin http://www.galwaycity.ie/GeneralNews/281011_02.pdf goto page 6. This would show where the apples and oranges fall.

    The N6 splits from the (original) Headford Rd, not the other way round, ergo the N6 is a right turn (not the Headford Rd being a left turn) off the main road.


  • #60
    yer man!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭yer man!


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Far too close to the N6 junction to be practical - by the looks of the map it's even close together than Briarhill & Parkmore or Liosban & Riverside

    This can be rectified by buying slightly more land further up the headford road and putting the T junction there. it would then be the same distance if not further than Parkmore - Briarhill

    antoobrien wrote: »
    Apples & Oranges - the N6 here is effectively the minor road that's splitting he N84 mas the major road (this was the original layout).

    The original layout doesn't matter anymore, the main road there now is the N6 end of story. the scheme is to improve the main artery the N6 - the bigger and busier road. By having Castlelawn have access to N6 intersection, all arms of the junction would be slowed down due to lack of simultaneous mavoeveures.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    Terrlyland Park? You mean the Dyke road coming around to Castlelawn?- No the "improvement" works on this combind with Bodkin in theory will render that rat run (which is already a nightmare) less practical.

    The walking park beside the old Ibis hotel, is it not a park for ppl to walk in? And by closing off sandyroad exit ppl would go through the retail park where N17 is.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    yer man! wrote: »
    This can be rectified by buying slightly more land further up the headford road and putting the T junction there. it would then be the same distance if not further than Parkmore - Briarhill

    You mean something like one of these options suggested earlier that wouldn't require much/any land purchase?
    yer man! wrote: »
    The original layout doesn't matter anymore, the main road there now is the N6 end of story.
    Yes it does - it's directly affecting the lives of hundreds (if not more than a thousand) residents of the Ballinfolye/Tirellan/Castleawn/Crestwood area.

    yer man! wrote: »
    the scheme is to improve the main artery the N6 - the bigger and busier road. By having Castlelawn have access to N6 intersection, all arms of the junction would be slowed down due to lack of simultaneous mavoeveures.

    Very subjective view that, only held up by reading a map and not understanding the local traffic movements and assuming that Sandy road will also be open. GCC have decided hat they only want 4 arm junctions, fine put in a proper plan to deal with the existing traffic.

    BNT is only important to the Gardai who have a couple of favourite speed traps on the road (which has a ludicrously low 50km/h limit). If you'd ask most Galway people they'd tell you that the Tuam or Dublin Roads are still the main entrance/exit routes to town.

    The only reason the city council decided to piss off the residents is because they're getting rates off the businesses. As soon as what imo should have happened in 1987 when the road opened in the first place was suggested the businesses kicked up.
    yer man! wrote: »
    The walking park beside the old Ibis hotel, is it not a park for ppl to walk in? And by closing off sandyroad exit ppl would go through the retail park where N17 is.
    That's the idea, especially, if as the city council are saying will happen, these junction upgrades increase the flow of traffic there will be no need to have the Sandy Rd entrance to Liosban open. So it appears that the city council don't believe their own propaganda.



    The entire plan for the has been ill considered and totally lacking in any kind of planning and "joined up thinking". It has been a plan in using money for the sake of spending a budget and is a poor excuse for what's really needed in Galway - a full bypass integrated with a comprehensive PT network.

    An Taisce put this shower of muppets at #3 - wtf?


Advertisement