The Failed Waterford Bypass and Toll System

Max Powers · 14-09-2011 7:53am

I think the new bypass and bridge is a a magnificent structure, in fact any friends or relatives visiting are really impressed by it, i used to use it a bit when i had a car/better job, but only sometimes now when I get the missus's car. I guess that just shows you the situation a lot of people are in. It will be busier when the economy recovers, just like the M50 in dublin, it was underused at first. Added to that, Irish people will probably have to get used to paying the odd toll.

wellboytoo · 14-09-2011 4:50pm

Master and commander wrote: »

Someone mentioned the council making the quays more pedestrian friendly and less traffic friendly -WTF, so in their wisdom they plan to make a bad traffic situation even worse by sticking in loads off ped lights and traffic islands. What idiots.

anyway the bypass was doomed from day 1. Its based around drivers from one side of the city using the bridge to access the other side of the city. The actual number using it for going Cork-Rosslare are tiny, not may people do that journey nowadays, only trucks - and trucks won't pay the ripp off toll, they'll just go they quays and they do. Just look at the way the signage suggests you go if you are coming in from the new ross side and want to go to tramore road say (waterford south). The signs suggest you drive all the way (4ish miles) up to the suir bridge, SHELL OUT, then drive all the way back into town on the southern side. What person in their right mind would make a 5 minute journey into a 15-20 minute one and burn up to 2 litres of fuel driving the best part of 10 miles - Let alone then actually PAYING OUT for the privilage of doing so. No, i like everyone else just keeps my money and fuel and takes the rice bridge/quays route and get there in 1/3 of the time.

Its too oversized anyway. It a fecking motorway standard road (in effect if not in name). There was no need for that monumental project. This is fecking Waaaawturfud, not los angeles FFS.

It would have been quite sufficient to have a high standard single carriageway, with a brigde linking newrath to the billberry/gracedeiu area, and then continuing out through carrickpeerish/gracedeiu to link up with the old n25 out by butlerstown somewhere, with a few interchanges/roundabouts along the way so people could actually use it without having to drive half way across the county to access it. A separate single carriageway bypass could have been built around kilmeaden as the waterford/kilmeaden N25 was just fine as it was.
A nice plain, cheap and cheeful 70's style precast concrete and low deck single carriageway bridge would have been perfectly adequate, no need for the monstrous phallus that we now have scarring the skyline for ever more.
Low deck - lets face it there no longer is nor will there ever be any kind ships going upstream of waterford, there is a small oil depot in fiddown but shure i don't even know if its still open, and if it is it won't be for long - its a very small and very old and decrepid Morris Oil depot.

I suppose its just a symtom of the sort of mania that gripped the place over the past decade.
That bridge is an awful awful piece of work. It blights the skyline from as far away as mullinavat. Any chance someone would blow it up and do waterford a favour:D

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm a budding engineer methinks, all function and no design, go wayyy out of it boi, stick to the civils at least there buried, Dungarvan and Clonmel are classic examples of ring roads that were undersized before they were completed, added to the fact that local planners allowed developments to access onto them willy nilly.
You amaze me in your knowledge that we will never ever ever need to send a ship up river again, ever,I think you should go back to the Simms and keep building.

Bullseye1 · 14-09-2011 5:00pm

I recently drove to Kinsale and used the Waterford by-pass. Fantastic stretch of road and a very nice bridge. Then you get to the Dungarven. God I couldn't wait to get away from those bloody roundabouts. It's a nightmare.

Fugs!! · 14-09-2011 11:39pm

The bridge being too big for a town like waterford is a load of rubbish. There are bridges like this dotted all over the world. Even in Croatia which is a poor country camparibly has about 20 of these. I've seen them.

You also must keep in mind that its half private funded and those people need to get there money back so the government are contractirally obliged to make people pay the toll and use this bridge. putting tolls on Rice bridge is money for the government and not part of the contract so thats out of the question.

Now in saying all this I do think the toll price is a little high. I think they should lower it for a trial period. Say €1 for 6 months and see if they can make more money.

Has anyone ever driven through France? It makes the Suir bridge seem like pennies to pay for.

strokle · 19-09-2011 5:45pm

I use this bypass and toll bridge every Monday morning on my way to dublin from youghal and back on a friday. I find the bypass very handy even though i am paying 1.80 to go on a half a mile stretch of road on a monday as i turn off on to the m9 just after the bridge. There is a huge number of vehicles that turn off before the toll and they pass me on the m9 motorway after travelling through the city. This astonishes me as it would surely cost 1.80 in fuel to travel through the city. The one thing i think that should be changed is that the stretch of road between the toll and the roundabout in kilmeaden should be changed to a 120km/hr road as it is as good if not better than the m9. Some of the midleton dual carriageway in cork was re-classified as 120km/hr and that road is not in as near a good condition as the road between the toll and the kilmeadan roundabout.

Master and commander · 20-09-2011 10:21am

wellboytoo wrote: »

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm a budding engineer methinks, all function and no design,.........

you hit the nail on the head! I'm soon to qualify as a civil engineer. Us engineers are constantly at loggerheads with those annoying architects. All they want is bits of glass and lumps of stainless steel sticking out at all sorts of crazy angles. (Literally, e.g. the tax office in the glen) whereas us engineers prefer boring, square concrete stuctures that are easier to design and cheaper and faster to build. We look at building from completely different perspectives. For the archies its about art and expression, for us its about function and efficiency.

wellboytoo · 20-09-2011 11:45am

Master and commander wrote: »

you hit the nail on the head! I'm soon to qualify as a civil engineer. Us engineers are constantly at loggerheads with those annoying architects. All they want is bits of glass and lumps of stainless steel sticking out at all sorts of crazy angles. (Literally, e.g. the tax office in the glen) whereas us engineers prefer boring, square concrete stuctures that are easier to design and cheaper and faster to build. We look at building from completely different perspectives. For the archies its about art and expression, for us its about function and efficiency.

The prosecution rests.......
As a btw are you not worried that I a complete stranger could spot what your chosen profession was down to the specific part of that profession, just from your posts? I mean talking about fulfilling stereotypes, I personally would be worried if I was in your shoes, but in dealing with engineers for the last thirthy years I am sure your enormous confidence will just wash over it.
I have always found them the hardest to deal with, in that they are (feel) supreme in their knowledge, the book says it ergo it must be true. Yet have not a wit of common sense, and are by and large unprepared to listen to some one who is not a fellow engineer. So if we ever meet at a site meeting , you will know me cos I'll be the fellow breaking your balls six ways from Sunday , because your an engineer.
love and big glass box's
Wellboytoo

merlante · 20-09-2011 2:24pm

wellboytoo wrote: »

The prosecution rests.......
As a btw are you not worried that I a complete stranger could spot what your chosen profession was down to the specific part of that profession, just from your posts? I mean talking about fulfilling stereotypes, I personally would be worried if I was in your shoes, but in dealing with engineers for the last thirthy years I am sure your enormous confidence will just wash over it.
I have always found them the hardest to deal with, in that they are (feel) supreme in their knowledge, the book says it ergo it must be true. Yet have not a wit of common sense, and are by and large unprepared to listen to some one who is not a fellow engineer. So if we ever meet at a site meeting , you will know me cos I'll be the fellow breaking your balls six ways from Sunday , because your an engineer.
love and big glass box's
Wellboytoo

Kind of sad the two disciplines are so disconnected really. One the one hand, all buildings have to stay up, no matter what; on the other hand every building has a social function that it was funded and built for. So some of the constraints are engineering constraints and others are social, legal, artistic and functional constraints. Seems to me the architect designs based on future use and human wellbeing and the engineer has to validate that the building will stay up and obey health and safety regulations. No real case for any superiority here.

wellboytoo · 20-09-2011 4:07pm

merlante wrote: »

Kind of sad the two disciplines are so disconnected really. One the one hand, all buildings have to stay up, no matter what; on the other hand every building has a social function that it was funded and built for. So some of the constraints are engineering constraints and others are social, legal, artistic and functional constraints. Seems to me the architect designs based on future use and human wellbeing and the engineer has to validate that the building will stay up and obey health and safety regulations. No real case for any superiority here.

I hope I did not come across as arrogant, annoyed is the emotion, I agree with your assertions entirely, but dislike intensely the attitude portrayed by the above contributor, and it is a reality in the business that I used to have to deal with daily, (not much happening these days) but some humility is noticeable at the few site meetings one doe's attend lately!
PS I am not an Architect.

merlante · 20-09-2011 5:07pm

wellboytoo wrote: »

I hope I did not come across as arrogant, annoyed is the emotion, I agree with your assertions entirely, but dislike intensely the attitude portrayed by the above contributor, and it is a reality in the business that I used to have to deal with daily, (not much happening these days) but some humility is noticeable at the few site meetings one doe's attend lately!
PS I am not an Architect.

I think it's a general problem with hard sciences looking down on soft sciences, which appears to be getting worse, to the detriment of all concerned.

ex_infantry man · 20-09-2011 6:33pm

Master and commander wrote: »

you hit the nail on the head! I'm soon to qualify as a civil engineer. Us engineers are constantly at loggerheads with those annoying architects. All they want is bits of glass and lumps of stainless steel sticking out at all sorts of crazy angles. (Literally, e.g. the tax office in the glen) whereas us engineers prefer boring, square concrete stuctures that are easier to design and cheaper and faster to build. We look at building from completely different perspectives. For the archies its about art and expression, for us its about function and efficiency.

are you a spawn of brendan McCan't????

Master and commander · 20-09-2011 7:13pm

wellboytoo wrote: »

The prosecution rests.......
As a btw are you not worried that I a complete stranger could spot what your chosen profession was down to the specific part of that profession, just from your posts? I mean talking about fulfilling stereotypes, I personally would be worried if I was in your shoes, but in dealing with engineers for the last thirthy years I am sure your enormous confidence will just wash over it.
I have always found them the hardest to deal with, in that they are (feel) supreme in their knowledge, the book says it ergo it must be true. Yet have not a wit of common sense, and are by and large unprepared to listen to some one who is not a fellow engineer. So if we ever meet at a site meeting , you will know me cos I'll be the fellow breaking your balls six ways from Sunday , because your an engineer.
love and big glass box's
Wellboytoo

us engineers take great pride in our hubris and arrogance. But were not the only ones - i remember when the archies were here in WIT, jeez they really liked the smell of their own farts. Narcissism is not the word. At least engineers just want to get the job done efficiently whereas the archies just babble on about aesthetics and use of space. yawn. There was constant jibes at eachother when we passed in the corridors of the T-block. I remember one lecturer deliberately ensured we overheard him telling a student that engineers were ignorant by nature.

well break our balls all ye want. at least we know what will and what will not stay up. Some of the models built in the archie dept are bonkers and are more akin to a Klingon Space station than buildings.

tonc76 · 20-09-2011 10:21pm

Master and commander wrote: »

us engineers take great pride in our hubris and arrogance. But were not the only ones - i remember when the archies were here in WIT, jeez they really liked the smell of their own farts. Narcissism is not the word. At least engineers just want to get the job done efficiently whereas the archies just babble on about aesthetics and use of space. yawn. There was constant jibes at eachother when we passed in the corridors of the T-block. I remember one lecturer deliberately ensured we overheard him telling a student that engineers were ignorant by nature.

well break our balls all ye want. at least we know what will and what will not stay up. Some of the models built in the archie dept are bonkers and are more akin to a Klingon Space station than buildings.

You come across as an immature twat, not an engineer. "Us engineers", "our", "we" etc is all BS considering you haven't even finished college and as such haven't a leg to stand on never mind the imaginery soapbox that you have perched yourself on top of.

Fugs!! · 23-09-2011 2:30pm

strokle wrote: »

I use this bypass and toll bridge every Monday morning on my way to dublin from youghal and back on a friday. I find the bypass very handy even though i am paying 1.80 to go on a half a mile stretch of road on a monday as i turn off on to the m9 just after the bridge. There is a huge number of vehicles that turn off before the toll and they pass me on the m9 motorway after travelling through the city. This astonishes me as it would surely cost 1.80 in fuel to travel through the city. The one thing i think that should be changed is that the stretch of road between the toll and the roundabout in kilmeaden should be changed to a 120km/hr road as it is as good if not better than the m9. Some of the midleton dual carriageway in cork was re-classified as 120km/hr and that road is not in as near a good condition as the road between the toll and the kilmeadan roundabout.

Out of curiosity, How much time do you reckon your saving by using the by-pass as apposed to driving through the city. For somebody like yourself it does seem very handy.

wmpdd3 · 24-09-2011 10:43pm

From grannagh to wit takes 15 mins through the city, without trafic and 8 mins on the way over the toll bridge, had to do a round trip around around 11am tuesday morning.

merlante · 25-09-2011 3:26pm

The quay is still a four lane racetrack, even with the extra set of lights they've put up near the plaza. They need to reduce the whole quay to single carriageway, whilst adding proper loading bays where needed. People use half the road as a carpark anyway, so not much of a loss. They also need to go ahead with the two roundabouts; this should fix that appalling junction outside the Bowery, where the timings of the lights are wrong and people do what they like anyway. You could take away the right turn from the Mall going onto Lombard street for a start.

Turn the quay from a busy road back to a city street and that will make the run through the city less tempting for would-be bypass users. Waterford city centre has fallen a lot way from its 18th century pomp by giving over quay and the Mall to traffic. Thankfully this is changing.

Speed checks on the Carrickpherish and old Kilmeaden roads would soon make that avenue less tempting as well, where 90+% of traffic do not stick to the 50 limit -- which is why it's seen as nice and quick.

merlante · 25-09-2011 3:29pm

Incidentally, the lights added outside WIT have made the Cork rd a lot more congested as it is.

wmpdd3 · 25-09-2011 9:23pm

merlante wrote: »

The quay is still a four lane racetrack, even with the extra set of lights they've put up near the plaza. They need to reduce the whole quay to single carriageway, whilst adding proper loading bays where needed. People use half the road as a carpark anyway, so not much of a loss. They also need to go ahead with the two roundabouts; this should fix that appalling junction outside the Bowery, where the timings of the lights are wrong and people do what they like anyway. You could take away the right turn from the Mall going onto Lombard street for a start.

Turn the quay from a busy road back to a city street and that will make the run through the city less tempting for would-be bypass users. Waterford city centre has fallen a lot way from its 18th century pomp by giving over quay and the Mall to traffic. Thankfully this is changing.

Speed checks on the Carrickpherish and old Kilmeaden roads would soon make that avenue less tempting as well, where 90+% of traffic do not stick to the 50 limit -- which is why it's seen as nice and quick.

Quay, what Quay? (!)

Going to the WIT, straight on at the bridge, right on to Grace Dieu rd, left onto Carrickpherish, Along the Knockhouse Rd, in to the old Kilmeaden rd. through the roundabout at B&Q, into college. I dont break the speed limit. I often pass the cops and the van up there esp theOld Kilmeaden rd.

I never use the Quay unless I'm parking on the Quay car parks.

The quay and the mall are given over to traffic because the rest of the town is either a lane or pedestrianised.

If yo make the Quay 2 lane and make loading bays, idiots will still park in the only left lane.

Sully · 25-09-2011 11:11pm

PLEASE GOD don't make the quay one lane. Otherwise we will get absolutely nowhere.

Fugs!! · 26-09-2011 2:39am

Sully wrote: »

PLEASE GOD don't make the quay one lane. Otherwise we will get absolutely nowhere.

Agreed. The quay is still a major urban route. Making it one lane is crazy. As for people driving whatever way they like at the bowery ... I have yet to see this.

If your afraid to drive up the quay than you should not be driving. I find nothing wrong with it.

wmpdd3 · 26-09-2011 11:00am

I have never seen anyone jump the lights at the Bowery either, must be the only place you dont see it. Buy I dont use that junction that often.

I have no problem driving up the quay but I stay in my lane and if you veere into my lane without an indicator you will be repainting you car. If you are stopped in a lane, you will be beckoned to move.

Cabaal · 26-09-2011 9:01pm

wmpdd3 wrote: »

I have never seen anyone jump the lights at the Bowery either, must be the only place you dont see it. Buy I dont use that junction that often.

I've seen it happen a good few times, incidentally the first time I saw it there was a Gardai car behind me at the lights which in turn went flying after the tool who broke the lights

Sully · 26-09-2011 9:23pm

Depending on the time of day, those traffic lights at the Bowery are to quick at changing so you get about two cars past.

Speak Now · 27-09-2011 9:48am

Where's the Bowery? is it the Reginald?

I've noticed they're the quickest changing lights around town.

What i mean is when your coming from the Lombard street side and turning right onto the quay if the light goes amber as you're driving through then by the time you pass the pedestrian crossing outside the Jade the green man is already on.

My pet hate is actually coming back down the Quay and turning left onto Lombard street. Always seems to be one car in wrong lane looking to go straight on that holds up all the traffic when the left filter arrow comes on. Would certainly need to keep two lanes in this area if the quay was changed into one.

mike65 · 10-05-2012 4:39pm

bump! from IrishTimes

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0510/breaking34.html

Another poor performer is the Waterford toll road where Mr Barry said traffic volumes were below “anything” that was anticipated either by the NRA or the road builders. But he said the commercial risk there and in other loss making PPPs was “borne entirely by the PPP company involved”.

CardBordWindow · 10-05-2012 4:58pm

Of course the figures are down from estimates. Not only has the ecomony gone to pot, but when they were calculating the traffic on the old bridge, it was the same time that they were excavating for the new bridge. All the soil they dug up was then driven to Grannagh, which increased the number of vehicles crossing the bridge.

hardybuck · 10-05-2012 5:04pm

CardBordWindow wrote: »

Of course the figures are down from estimates. Not only has the ecomony gone to pot, but when they were calculating the traffic on the old bridge, it was the same time that they were excavating for the new bridge. All the soil they dug up was then driven to Grannagh, which increased the number of vehicles crossing the bridge.

Ah come on, surely they factored in that extra traffic when making their estimates!?

Bards · 10-05-2012 11:06pm

CardBordWindow wrote: »

Of course the figures are down from estimates. Not only has the ecomony gone to pot, but when they were calculating the traffic on the old bridge, it was the same time that they were excavating for the new bridge. All the soil they dug up was then driven to Grannagh, which increased the number of vehicles crossing the bridge.

Traffic counting was done years before the awarding of the contract and not during construction.

fitzeyboy. · 11-05-2012 1:06am

It's probably because they assumed that the percentage of passing traffic was higher than it is. In reality most of the traffic coming over the bridge is and was at the time of the survey, coming into the city.

fricatus · 11-05-2012 8:04am

fitzeyboy. wrote: »

It's probably because they assumed that the percentage of passing traffic was higher than it is. In reality most of the traffic coming over the bridge is and was at the time of the survey, coming into the city.

I'd say you're right. Because the N25 is designated as the Cork-Rosslare route, the NRA probably let that cloud their thinking, and assumed that a lot more of the traffic crossing Rice Bridge was through traffic. That's the only explanation I can think of. But the fact is, most of the traffic on the routes into Waterford is going to or from Waterford.

Through traffic will of course use the toll bridge, but local traffic will only do so occasionally. The bulk of the traffic is local: in 2006, there were 42,000 vehicles a day crossing Rice Bridge. In January of this year there were 33,000 (source: NRA website). If anything, that latter figure would probably be higher if it were not for the recession, so the ratio of local to passing traffic is probably about 4:1 or 5:1.

hardybuck · 11-05-2012 9:27am

I think the City Council should look towards some form of HGV ban if they haven't done so already. Alternatively hauliers possibly should be offered some sort of incentive to use the new bridge as well - some sort of price reduction.

I can remember many days of clogged traffic all up Parnell Street to the Quay. A considerable amount of that traffic was made up of lorries etc.

BBM77 · 11-05-2012 10:00am

I don’t know about projected figures but I can see with my own eyes that traffic on approaches to Rice Bridge, such as Bridge St, Grattan Quay, Military Road, Summer Hill, Gracedieu Road and The Glen, is lighter at peak times now than before the by-pass opened. Before the bypass opened it used to be grid lock every day, it still does be busy but nothing like it used to be. Don’t get me wrong I still don’t agree with tolling a by-pass. However I it is a bit harsh to call it a failure when people like me can see a noticeable reduction in traffic volumes.

I am just wondering what exactly would constitute success with the by-pass in peoples minds? Traffic volumes are always going to be heavy in Waterford as we are a car dependent city and hinterland. Let’s be honest when people complain about the city centre a lot of it comes down to the fact that you cannot park outside the doors of shops. When this attitude prevails you cannot expect free flowing traffic 24/7.

mike65 · 11-05-2012 10:56am

Before the bypass opened the economy was booming, I'd say the collapse of business has more to do with lighter volumes of HGVs.

BBM77 · 11-05-2012 12:49pm

mike65 wrote: »

Before the bypass opened the economy was booming, I'd say the collapse of business has more to do with lighter volumes of HGVs.

The down turn has not caused that much of a drop in traffic, not enough to account for the improved traffic volumes in the areas I mentioned. Not to mention that the traffic was always bad in these area even before the so called Celtic Tiger period.

Max Powers · 11-05-2012 1:18pm

BBM77 wrote: »

The down turn has not caused that much of a drop in traffic, not enough to account for the improved traffic volumes in the areas I mentioned. Not to mention that the traffic was always bad in these area even before the so called Celtic Tiger period.

Disagree with traffic volumes not dropped that much since years ago. Take a look in any liquidation/repossesion sale over last few years and see the amount of work vehicles not on the road anymore. I presume car sales have dropped off. I dont have a car anymore and I know loads of peope who had to get rid too.
I was down the Mall at 8ish in the morning yesterday, eerily quiet for such a normally busy place.

calvin_zola · 11-05-2012 2:23pm

Max Powers wrote: »

car anymore and I know loads of peope who had to get rid too.
I was down the Mall at 8ish in the morning yesterday, eerily quiet for such a normally busy place.

walk of shame home was it

BBM77 · 11-05-2012 2:31pm

Max Powers wrote: »

Disagree with traffic volumes not dropped that much since years ago. Take a look in any liquidation/repossesion sale over last few years and see the amount of work vehicles not on the road anymore. I presume car sales have dropped off. I dont have a car anymore and I know loads of peope who had to get rid too.
I was down the Mall at 8ish in the morning yesterday, eerily quiet for such a normally busy place.

Well I am 35 now, I grew up in the area I mentioned and I am still around there constantly so I know what I am talking about. Whatever the drop in the number of total vehicles licensed is it would not be enough to account for the drop in traffic volumes, on its own, in the area I mentioned.

Also I worked on Adelphi Quay from 2000 to 2005 and I drove along The Mall every morning at around 8:30am and it was never that busy at that time.

I don’t know if I am missing something or not but what is the problem with the idea that the by-pass has had some positive effects on Waterford. Despite the fact that the majority of people feel it should not be tolled, myself included.

tonc76 · 11-05-2012 4:38pm

fitzeyboy. wrote: »

It's probably because they assumed that the percentage of passing traffic was higher than it is. In reality most of the traffic coming over the bridge is and was at the time of the survey, coming into the city.

There is more to it than assuming where traffic goes! Origin and destination survey/surveys would have been carried out well in advance of planning to determine where traffic was coming from and headed to. These would have been carried out on all routes to and from the city and are used as justification for a bypass.

looksee · 12-05-2012 12:13am

Traffic is definitely lighter than it was, even on routes not affected by the by-pass. I used to find that it took up to 45 minutes to get from Tramore to the Mall, mostly waiting at the Balindud roundabout because of the volume of traffic coming from the Dunmore direction towards the Cork Road. Now I can do a straight run in with usually no more than a couple of cars in front of me at the roundabout, about 20 to 25 minutes - the slowest bit being Manor Street and Parnell Street.

bkehoe · 12-05-2012 3:17pm

Traffic volumes have dropped considerably in and around Waterford in the last few years and are still dropping on some routes at least. The most obvious for me is the reduction in the amount of traffic commuting from Waterford to New Ross - seen in the lack of traffic jam going into New Ross in the evenings these days.

And if anyone wants proof, check out the numbers on the traffic counters. Take the N25 at Glenmore as an example with which to judge the amount of traffic coming to or from Waterford on one of the 3 primary routes feeding the Rice Bridge/new bypass.

Average Daily Volume
Feb 2006: 12,355
Feb 2007: 12,409
Feb 2008: 12,750
Feb 2009: 11,731
Feb 2010: 11,840
Feb 2011: 10,771
Feb 2012: 10,447

That's over 2000 cars per day less on the N25 today than at the peak in 2007/2008.

Anybody remember the days that the traffic into Waterford on the N25 used to stretch out almost as far as Slieverue and would take 30 - 45mins just to get to the bridge? I rest my case.

bkehoe · 12-05-2012 3:23pm

To add to this, traffic crossing Rice Bridge...

Jan 2007: 41,164
Jan 2009: 37,626
Jan 2012: 33,131

Yes this is a bypass affected route, but the point I'm making is the traffic crossing the bridge had already dropped by about 3500 cars per day before the new bypass and bridge opened; a direct result of the downturn.

Finnbar01 · 13-05-2012 10:28am

bkehoe wrote: »

To add to this, traffic crossing Rice Bridge...

Jan 2007: 41,164
Jan 2009: 37,626
Jan 2012: 33,131

Yes this is a bypass affected route, but the point I'm making is the traffic crossing the bridge had already dropped by about 3500 cars per day before the new bypass and bridge opened; a direct result of the downturn.

What downturn?

road_high · 13-05-2012 4:46pm

bkehoe wrote: »

And if anyone wants proof, check out the numbers on the traffic counters. Take the N25 at Glenmore as an example with which to judge the amount of traffic coming to or from Waterford on one of the 3 primary routes feeding the Rice Bridge/new bypass.

Average Daily Volume
Feb 2006: 12,355
Feb 2007: 12,409
Feb 2008: 12,750
Feb 2009: 11,731
Feb 2010: 11,840
Feb 2011: 10,771
Feb 2012: 10,447

That's over 2000 cars per day less on the N25 today than at the peak in 2007/2008.

Anybody remember the days that the traffic into Waterford on the N25 used to stretch out almost as far as Slieverue and would take 30 - 45mins just to get to the bridge? I rest my case.

A lot of Waterford-Dublin traffic used use this road before the M9 was completed so I would say some of the drop is accounted for there so it's a little distorted...

ex_infantry man · 13-05-2012 6:54pm

i drive for a living and i have noticed a drop off in traffic volumes every day even when i get onto the m11 heading for arklow there used be loads of cars fly past me every morning not so much these days

bkehoe · 13-05-2012 7:27pm

mfitzy wrote: »

A lot of Waterford-Dublin traffic used use this road before the M9 was completed so I would say some of the drop is accounted for there so it's a little distorted...

Doesn't explain the associated drop in traffic over Rice bridge before the motorway or bypass opened though.

road_high · 13-05-2012 9:19pm

bkehoe wrote: »

Doesn't explain the associated drop in traffic over Rice bridge before the motorway or bypass opened though.

Sure, but the figures (to which I commented on) you quoted are/were for the N25 at Glenmore? I never mentioned Rice Bridge...

bkehoe · 13-05-2012 10:36pm

mfitzy wrote: »

Sure, but the figures (to which I commented on) you quoted are/were for the N25 at Glenmore? I never mentioned Rice Bridge...

I posted both sets of figures - both N25 traffic and Rice Bridge traffic, and both dropped long before the bypass or motorway were open.

mike65 · 13-05-2012 11:21pm

Finnbar01 wrote: »

What downturn?

er you may have spotted this sort of thing

road_high · 14-05-2012 8:08am

bkehoe wrote: »

I posted both sets of figures - both N25 traffic and Rice Bridge traffic, and both dropped long before the bypass or motorway were open.

Yes, but I was specifically quoting the N25 Glenmore ones in my post

Finnbar01 · 14-05-2012 1:14pm

mike65 wrote: »

er you may have spotted this sort of thing

What are you on about? What's with that photo? When do you know will those houses be completed. i want to buy one or two as investment pwopweties.

The Failed Waterford Bypass and Toll System

Comments