Roundabouts [or] lights?

Toon--soldier

Iwannahurl wrote: »

No question: roundabouts should be replaced with signalised junctions that maximise the safety of vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists.

According to An Garda Siochana, 25% of collisions in Galway City occur on roundabouts. That is reason alone to remove or radically redesign them.

Traffic flow is not superior to safety as a reason for keeping roundabouts.

The City Council's own research has shown that roundabouts are seriously problematic for many vulnerable road users. This has been validated by AGS and even by independent agencies such as Failte Ireland.

75% of collisions in Galway City occur don't roundabouts.

Luveen

Roundabouts - defineatly better!!

But unfortunatly the majority of drivers DO NOT know how to use them,
so lights couldnt be simpler for them drivers who havent a clue about basic road rules!!

But even when/if we get light you'll have the problems of people not knowing what lane, blocking yellow boxes .....etc

Iwannahurl

Toon--soldier wrote: »

75% of collisions in Galway City occur don't roundabouts.

Is that supposed to signify something important, or intelligible?

There are around 300km of road in Galway City, a very large number of ordinary junctions, and only 14 or so roundabouts (assuming they are all named after the Tribes).

If 25% of collisions are occurring in just a tiny fraction of all possible locations, then there is a problem. That's why AGS have highlighted the issue.

Iwannahurl

Luveen wrote: »

Roundabouts - defineatly better!!

How so? AGS, the City Council's own research, independent agencies and now the local authority's own engineering consultants indicate otherwise. Do you know something they don't?

Toon--soldier

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Is that supposed to signify something important, or intelligible?

There are around 300km of road in Galway City, a very large number of ordinary junctions, and only 14 or so roundabouts (assuming they are all named after the Tribes).

If 25% of collisions are occurring in just a tiny fraction of all possible locations, then there is a problem. That's why AGS have highlighted the issue.

A more helpful figure would be the amount of cars in a year that use the roundabout and are involved in a collision, and the amount of cars that use the roundabout and aren’t involved in collisions. It’s easy to say the 25% percent of collisions occur on roundabouts when nearly 100% of all city traffic must pass through a roundabout at some stage during the day.

Iwannahurl

Toon--soldier wrote: »

A more helpful figure would be the amount of cars in a year that use the roundabout and are involved in a collision, and the amount of cars that use the roundabout and aren’t involved in collisions. It’s easy to say the 25% percent of collisions occur on roundabouts when nearly 100% of all city traffic must pass through a roundabout at some stage during the day.

Unless the traffic is levitating elsewhere, then 100% of it also goes on roads and through normal junctions.

Your proposed comparison would yield no information as to the relative safety of roundabouts versus other junction types.

In addition to the Garda collision data there is also quantitative and qualitative information in the form of responses to a Council survey, indicating that roundabouts pose significant hazards to vulnerable road users. Interestingly, the Council's survey responses highlighted the problems caused by roundabouts, even though the questionnaire didn't even mention this junction type!

Toon--soldier

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Unless the traffic is levitating elsewhere, then 100% of it also goes on roads and through normal junctions.

Your proposed comparison would yield no information as to the relative safety of roundabouts versus other junction types.

QUOTE]

B]It would give the percentage of roundabout users involved in accidents, this information could then be compared to the amount of traffic light users invoved in accidents. [/B]

Iwannahurl

What you referred to earlier was "the amount of cars in a year that use the roundabout and are involved in a collision, and the amount of cars that use the roundabout and aren’t involved in collisions". That would be focusing on only one junction type.

Any research regarding the relative frequency of collisions would have to look at other junction types and road locations.

I still think it's significant that only 14 or so locations in the city feature one out of every four collisions.

Perceived safety is also very important, and respondents to at least two and possibly three surveys in the last few years have specifically highlighted roundabouts as being hazardous and intimidating.

Roundabouts have also been identified as problematic for buses (see Strategic Bus Study 2007, for example). Don't forget also that most bus users are pedestrians at the start and end of their journey, so infrastructure and traffic conditions that deter walking (and which do not sufficiently control the road network) will also adversely affect public transport.

Toon--soldier

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What you referred to earlier was "the amount of cars in a year that use the roundabout and are involved in a collision, and the amount of cars that use the roundabout and aren’t involved in collisions". That would be focusing on only one junction type.

I would only be delighted to compare these figures to the equivalent traffic light figures it would be the only fair comparison

Pesronally I feel the garda traffic collision figures are a poor reference to show the safety of one type of junction over another as they do not include the volume of traffic that passes through each type of junction, which can distort the figures greatly.

Iwannahurl

Roundabouts ought to be safer (according to research done in other countries) but in Ireland they are not. Design is critical, as not all roundabouts are the same, and the needs of vulnerable road users require special attention.

The Public Transport Feasibility Study published last year identified roundabouts as being problematic for pedestrians and disabled people, and also stated that multi-lane high-flow roundabouts (of the type typically seen in Ireland) have an accident rate for cyclists 14 to 16 times that of motorists.

dec25532

It is quite astounding that the City Council want to install lights instead of roundabouts when they have made a complete balls of the situation at Moneenageisha.
When the lights were installed, the signalling was supposed to be on a trial basis and the lights would then be synchronised to accommodate traffic coming from all directions. This has not been done.
The lights from the College Road/Lough Atalia Road side, for example, are a disaster and particularly when, in the evening times, cars cannot move even when they are governed by a green light. This is the worst possible example of replacing a roundabout with traffic lights.
And now they want to do the whole city. Fcuk off, no thanks. It will mean them erecting lights on "a trial basis" and then synchronising them once they determine the traffic flow which will not happen and result in even worse traffic delays.
Outer city bypass or nothing.

yer man!

Iwannahurl wrote: »

How so? AGS, the City Council's own research, independent agencies and now the local authority's own engineering consultants indicate otherwise. Do you know something they don't?

The council have done nothing in Galway BUT make things worse year after year. What ever advice they are getting, it sure as hell isn't good.

Iwannahurl

yer man! wrote: »

The council have done nothing in Galway BUT make things worse year after year. What ever advice they are getting, it sure as hell isn't good.

There is something in what you say. The dominant advice at present is that a Bypass should be built.

Iwannahurl

dec25532 wrote: »

It is quite astounding that the City Council want to install lights instead of roundabouts when they have made a complete balls of the situation at Moneenageisha.
When the lights were installed, the signalling was supposed to be on a trial basis and the lights would then be synchronised to accommodate traffic coming from all directions. This has not been done.
The lights from the College Road/Lough Atalia Road side, for example, are a disaster and particularly when, in the evening times, cars cannot move even when they are governed by a green light. This is the worst possible example of replacing a roundabout with traffic lights.
And now they want to do the whole city. Fcuk off, no thanks. It will mean them erecting lights on "a trial basis" and then synchronising them once they determine the traffic flow which will not happen and result in even worse traffic delays.
Outer city bypass or nothing.

How do you synchronise one set of traffic lights? I'm no roads engineer, but my understanding is that the excess of roundabouts reduces the ability to manage traffic. If roundabouts on key routes are replaced with controlled signalised junctions that can be monitored centrally, then traffic flow can be managed better.

With regard to the GCOB, the NRA are promising exactly that for the next decade or so: nothing.

If anyone is to blame for Galway's traffic congestion (and I believe there is) it is Galway City Council's "Planning" department and the elected members of the formerly dominant political parties in the Council, FF and FG.

This excerpt from the NRA's National Roads Traffic Management Study says it all:

In the absence of the GCOB, the Galway Ring Road continues to provide connectivity between the major radial routes. Nevertheless, although constructed as a City Bypass, the existing Ring Road (Bóthar na dTreabh) has supported significant growth in retail and low-density employment uses which have been displaced from the City Centre by this infrastructure. This has led to significant erosion in the level of service provided by the ring road, leading to an inability to achieve its originally desired function.

Bothar na dTreabh and Quincentenary Bridge were originally touted as solutions to growing problems of traffic congestion. Within ten years of the new bridge being opened, major development had been allowed in the vicinity and then the inevitable complaints about traffic congestion started again.

Now there's more clamouring and lobbying for a new Outer Bypass, and the speculators, developers and commercial interests, along with their good friends in Galway City Council, can already get the smell of the future money-making possibilities that they expect the Bypass to provide.

snubbleste

Good post.

yer man!

Iwannahurl wrote: »

How do you synchronise one set of traffic lights? I'm no roads engineer, but my understanding is that the excess of roundabouts reduces the ability to manage traffic. If roundabouts on key routes are replaced with controlled signalised junctions that can be monitored centrally, then traffic flow can be managed better.

With regard to the GCOB, the NRA are promising exactly that for the next decade or so: nothing.

If anyone is to blame for Galway's traffic congestion (and I believe there is) it is Galway City Council's "Planning" department and the elected members of the formerly dominant political parties in the Council, FF and FG.

This excerpt from the NRA's National Roads Traffic Management Study says it all:

In the absence of the GCOB, the Galway Ring Road continues to provide connectivity between the major radial routes. Nevertheless, although constructed as a City Bypass, the existing Ring Road (Bóthar na dTreabh) has supported significant growth in retail and low-density employment uses which have been displaced from the City Centre by this infrastructure. This has led to significant erosion in the level of service provided by the ring road, leading to an inability to achieve its originally desired function.

Bothar na dTreabh and Quincentenary Bridge were originally touted as solutions to growing problems of traffic congestion. Within ten years of the new bridge being opened, major development had been allowed in the vicinity and then the inevitable complaints about traffic congestion started again.

Now there's more clamouring and lobbying for a new Outer Bypass, and the speculators, developers and commercial interests, along with their good friends in Galway City Council, can already get the smell of the future money-making possibilities that they expect the Bypass to provide.

Well said altogether.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Bothar na dTreabh and Quincentenary Bridge were originally touted as solutions to growing problems of traffic congestion. Within ten years of the new bridge being opened, major development had been allowed in the vicinity and then the inevitable complaints about traffic congestion started again.

Now there's more clamouring and lobbying for a new Outer Bypass, and the speculators, developers and commercial interests, along with their good friends in Galway City Council, can already get the smell of the future money-making possibilities that they expect the Bypass to provide.

What total and utter rubbish - there was housing development around the the new bridge and so called ring road (part of which passes through eyre square so ti can't be called a bypass) - long before they were built - and the bypass was being proposed before all the new estates starting spring up in Doughiska, Ballybrit, Ballybane and other such places (it was proposed first more than 10 years ago, a lot of housing estates there are 20 years old).

It was known within a year or two of construction that the new bridge wouldn't be able to cope with the amount of traffic that it was getting, and would be getting into the future.

I find it laughable that anyone can claim that retail has been displaced from the city center - it has moved away from it because people can't get into the city center - why else would dunnes and quinnsworth have set up in terryland (they're there as long as I can remember) in the first place?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

What total and utter rubbish - there was housing development around the the new bridge and so called ring road (part of which passes through eyre square so ti can't be called a bypass) - long before they were built - and the bypass was being proposed before all the new estates starting spring up in Doughiska, Ballybrit, Ballybane and other such places (it was proposed first more than 10 years ago, a lot of housing estates there are 20 years old).

It was known within a year or two of construction that the new bridge wouldn't be able to cope with the amount of traffic that it was getting, and would be getting into the future.

I find it laughable that anyone can claim that retail has been displaced from the city center - it has moved away from it because people can't get into the city center - why else would dunnes and quinnsworth have set up in terryland (they're there as long as I can remember) in the first place?

If you're going to make allegations about "total and utter rubbish" then it would help your case if you steered clear of it yourself.

I notice that you conveniently omit the NRA's own analysis from your post.

It is a matter of historical fact that Bothar na dTreabh and associated infrastructure led to increased development in its vicinity. This led to a reduction in the level of service that these roads were supposed to provide. If you have evidence that contradicts the NRA's analysis then you ought to submit it to them asap -- they pay good money for such expert consultancy. Please post a copy or a link here when you do so.

On the other hand, your reference to certain large retailers being there 'as long as you can remember' suggests that you may need to work a little harder for your expert status. And by the way, they didn't move from the city centre.

If it was known with a year or two of construction that the Quincentenary Bridge and Bothar na dTreabh would not cope with the level of traffic, then I would suggest that indicates a degree of failure in planning even greater than I had originally thought.

Are we to repeat the same unsustainable strategy again? Is that the best we can do?

It is clear that a primary purpose of the GCOB is to pave the way for development on the lands around it, and indeed in the city centre itself (currently stymied by traffic concerns). In early 2007, a director of Keane Mahony Smith was given two whole pages in the Galway Advertiser to tell us "What's Down The Road For Galway". Here's an excerpt:

Galway City and County is governed by development plans which have plan boundaries. If we were to compare what is happening in other towns and cities that have been bypassed, land tends to become zoned inside the ring road, bypass, etc and these roads tend to become the new plan boundary. Areas in Knocknacarra, Bushypark, Menlo, Castlegar, Barna and Briarhill will be opened up. Already there is a local area plan being prepared for a section of land between the Monivea Road, the Tuam Road and the Parkmore Road and inside the GCOB.

IMO, it simply not acceptable that the proponents of a new Outer Bypass can claim it is needed to relieve traffic congestion and yet at the same time deny or ignore that there are some who deliberately intend it to be used to create further development of the same kind that failed to deal with traffic congestion in the past. In fact that development directly led to more traffic congestion.

We've had more than enough of that greed, corruption and unsustainability in this country already, thank you very much. Indeed we'll be paying for it for decades.

Why should taxpayers' money be used to facilitate such private gain and unsustainable development?

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It is a matter of historical fact that Bothar na dTreabh and associated infrastructure led to increased development in its vicinity.

I live in Castlegar so I know the area being referred to very well, I call that utter hogwash. With the exception of Doughiska & Roscam (which started development approx 3 years after it was built) the vast majority of industrial and residential areas was already there.

How many new retail parks & industrial estates are there are there (less than 10 years old when the bypass was first suggested)? Most of them, such as Dunnes Shopping center, Sandy Road, Motorpark, Liosban, Mervue industrial estates, Ballybrit (APC, Boston etc), Parkmore West are all than 15 years old and some far longer than that. Sure I can pick out places like the car dealership and the place opposite the Galway Plate but the vast majority of facilities were already there, and were expanded.

How many new housing estates outside those two areas have been built along that route in the last 15 years? Ballinfolye, Crestwood, Sandyvale, Glenburn Park, Balybrit Hieghts, Lawns, Meadows, Gardens are all older than the dual carriage way that pass by them.

And older than the NRA.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

...I call that utter hogwash...

I would have to search for specific examples of the kind of retail development alluded to by the NRA. I don't have time just now, but as and when I think of examples I'll post them here.

However, one does spring to mind immediately. Galway Retail Park on the Headford Road, very close to the infamous Bodkin Roundabout (aka Circus of Horrors). That retail park is home to the Omniplex Cinema, which opened in 1993 I believe. IIRC the Quincentenary Bridge opened in 1987. The retail park was a traffic-generating development that was clearly allowed to occur in the immediate vicinity of a road that was supposed to relieve traffic congestion.

The Bodkin Magic Roundabout is also a very good example of the insanity of constructing such monstrosities in and around a city like Galway. The half-assed traffic signals are a botched attempt at putting a sticking plaster on an open sore.

As an example of car-dependent lunacy it's hard to beat the Retail Park and its relationship to the shopping centre across the road. If you park in either commercial centre and walk across the road to its opposite number, your car is liable to be clamped! To drive from the retail park to the shopping centre you have to turn left and go round the roundabout. If that kind of thing doesn't generate needless traffic congestion I don't know what does.

And what of the other developments in that area? There's the student accommodation just off the Bodkin Roundabout, from where 1 in every 5 students travels to NUIG by car either as a driver or passenger. There's the Menlo Park Hotel, opened in 1998 I believe (though I am open to correction on that). Then there was the hotel near the roundabout just off Bothar na dTreabh -- was it the Ibis? Now closed and serving as a centre for asylum seekers I believe.

By the way, when was The Plaza development (apartments, offices and shops) on the Headford Road constructed, and when did Argos and Lidl open their doors? I have no information on that, but my guess would be that the complex was built in the late 90s.

Am I just making this stuff up? Do you just dismiss these commercial and residential developments as being of no relevance and as having no impact on congestion since the 'traffic-relieving' Quincentenary Bridge opened?





EDIT: Another large development, constructed well after the Quincentenary Bridge opened, was Headford Point, featuring the Courtyard Marriott Hotel (now the Pillo).

The first Marriott property in the west of Ireland, the Courtyard Galway is part of Headford Point: a mixed-use building containing office space and retail shops. Situated on a roundabout on one of the main access roads to Galway...

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I would have to search for specific examples of the kind of retail development alluded to by the NRA. I don't have time just now, but as and when I think of examples I'll post them here.

However, one does spring to mind immediately. Galway Retail Park on the Headford Road, very close to the infamous Bodkin Roundabout (aka Circus of Horrors)

The way the original quote is written implies greenfields builds with no existing residential, retail or industrial facilities. The majority of your examples quoted are of areas where there were PRE-EXISTING business/retail facilities. In case you've forgotten the whole area from beside Argos & Lidl (which should never have gotten PP) down past Galway SC to Dunes has had a retail presence since the at least the early 80s (I can't go back any further than that personally but I do remember being "brought" in there shopping). Busniess tend to cluster together, and this is especially true in the areas around successful ones, the NRA and all the various planning authorities would do well to remember that before making such airheaded statements.

Yes there are problems with the headford road, but before you go blaming it all on the retail parks and housing (of which there was plenty in the early 80s before all this was built) consider this:all the traffic from East of the Corrib is being pushed into 4 Junctions thata re very close to one another (can walk it leisurely in about 20 mins) - namely Moneeneghsa Cross, Cemetery Cross, Terryland Roundabout & the Headford Rd roundabout. Now I don't have figures to back it up but from what I've seen before I moved to Dublin, most of the traffic from the Moneen seems to go to Cemetary cross, a lot of that traffic goes down Sean Mulvoy to Terryland - so the "magic roundabout" is effectively Galway's Red Cow (Briarhill is not far behind tho because of the idiotic setup there, they should have CPOed the land beside Western Motors, rerouted Ballybrit Road and closed the outbound Monivea Road exit - still can but they're intent on putting anther set of lights on a junction that shouldn't need them, but I digress).

Using the NRAs own figures for the N17 and M6 there are on average over 40,000 vehicles coming into the city every day. While there are no figures available for the other routes into Galway city the N18, N84, R339 or R446 I'm pretty confident that 40k is a conservative number, and when we consider that the city council assert that there are 18,000 journeys to work being made by people living within the city council electoral areas - do you really think that these 4 junctions can take this kind of load?

Unless it was dreamed up before all the areas I have mentioned were built, there's no way in hell that the "outer ring road" could be called a city bypass. Whomever did attempt to describe it as such should be fired for gross incompetence.

I believe the bridge opened earlier than that (the project was ongoing during the year long party but I can't remember if it was opened that year), I remember walking over to Terryland from Mervue to go to matches and hopping over the guardrail - which would have been 85/86. I think the section of Bóthar na dTreabh you're referring to and the section between Ballinfolyle and JJ Fleemings, opened in 87/88/89 (again kinda hazy with dates so long ago).

Iwannahurl

You're right, the Quincentenary Bridge opened in 1984, the 500th anniversary of the city's official founding. I vaguely thought it might have been earlier than 1987 but I didn't check before posting. I myself remember the Headford Road before any of this development took place. I was in primary school with a boy who lived in a house that can still be seen close to the roundabout at the Menlo Park Hotel. Back then his house seemed to me to be way out in the sticks, with nothing but open country beyond. By the way, I'm not saying that Galway should stay like it was back in the old days. I'm not against development -- I am against unsustainable and car-dependent development.

I think the NRA's comment, which is a very brief description of what occurred not an analysis, is reasonable and accurate. The "ring road" supported the developments mentioned earlier. If you construct a road to relieve traffic congestion -- and that is why it was constructed, following years of complaints about traffic through the city -- then as a roads and planning authority the Council had a duty to ensure that they did not allow development which would give rise to more traffic congestion, or at least not as quickly as actually happened.

There may have been some retail development in these areas already, but you have to consider the scale of what was there previously and of what followed after. Retail businesses and other development does not happen by accident or through random processes. Somebody decides they want to have such development, usually developers and speculators, and somebody decides to let them proceed, usually "planners" and Councillors. This entire country is now awash with unsustainable and unsuitable development thanks to the greed, incompetence, corruption and chaos associated with such processes.

The fact remains that the bridge and Bothar na dTreabh were touted as being necessary to relieve traffic congestion. Check the newspaper archives, and the official planning records if you have time (I haven't but I am confident the record will show that this was the proposed purpose of the "ring road").

We are now being sold the idea of an Outer Bypass as the primary solution for Galway's "traffic woes". My fear -- which is based on evidence such as the situation described by the NRA, on comments made by Councillors, on newsapers articles such as that two page spread in the Advertiser in 2007, and on what has undoubtedly occurred elsewhere in the country over the last decade or two -- is that a new bypass will simply provide opportunities for the same greed, chaos, unsustainability and car dependence, leading ultimately to no long-term relief from traffic congestion. I wish I could say otherwise, but I have no faith in our "planners" and elected representatives. Neither do I have faith in an acquiescent populace that sees no harm in such unsustainablity and car-dependence and which doesn't really care who does what or why as long as the traffic keeps moving.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

is that a new bypass will simply provide opportunities for the same greed, chaos, unsustainability and car dependence, leading ultimately to no long-term relief from traffic congestion.

If that's all you're worried about it's not that hard to make sure this won't happen - slap blanket bans on developments within say 1 mile of the new bypass. Make the legislation watertight. This will have the effect of limiting the size of the city and moving developments to places like Bearna, Moycullen, Claregalway and Oranmore, which will also need to have the correct infrastucture set up i.e. proper junctions access etc.

what really annoys me about that comment is actually a question:
Why do anti development people always, always hide behind these arguments?

Nationwide we have seen dozens of examples over the years when when we provide infrastructure is is quickly overwhelmed because we provided "enough". The bridge is one example, it was recognized very quickly that this wasn't going to be enough and was a big problem long before the celtic tiger was a kitten - Bodkin Roundabout is a result of that. The M50 is another, it was laughingly referred to for years as Europe's biggest car park.

We've spent most of the past 15 years trying to the mistake of providing "enough" and have started to provide something that will be future proofed. Only this is Ireland and we're not allowed to do things correctly and we have to spend decades trying to catch up because of peoples meddling.

Let the NRA plan, design and build and control developments along the road. Hell make it a motorway for planning purposes (but don't enforce the order, or it'll defeat the purpose of taking unnecessary traffic out of the city).

Iwannahurl

I've already said I am not anti-development. I'm hiding behind nothing. Are you trying to put words in my mouth? If so, please do not try to impute dishonesty or deflect attention from valid arguments by slinging mud of that nature.

If I was anti-development I would not be advocating that Galway follow the example of Copenhagen, for instance, an extremely pleasant modern city that far surpasses anything Ireland has ever achieved in terms of urban development and transport planning. The Danes have a civilised 'European' approach to such matters, IMO, unlike those determined philistines in this country still wallowing in their post-colonial adolescence and constantly failing to look beyond their near neighbour, or worse, happy to ape the worst of what the US has to offer in terms of unsustainable land use and transport policy (as well as a load of other cultural dross). Christ Almighty, it's no wonder we're getting obese as a nation. Fat arses and fat heads in abundance.

The NRA is the National Roads Authority, and so their primary focus is on roads. There is far more to transport policy than the provision of roads, as a visit to any civilised European city will show. The reason so many road projects, such as the M50, went pear-shaped is that the fatheads have been so dominant. One of Ireland's greatest fatheads, Bertie I-won-it-on-the-horses Ahern told the so-called anti-development sceptics that they should "commit suicide".

One of the foremost critics of what is laughably called "Planning" in this here Republic of Banana, Frank McDonald, is far from being anti-development and is a champion of all the best modern architecture and urban planning has to offer. This is what he had to say about the M50 mess back in 2006:

The decision to locate Ikea in an already heavily congested road corridor merely compounds a history of bad planning that has left the motorway littered with huge traffic generators such as Liffey Valley shopping centre as well as miscellaneous retail and business parks.

As a result, the original aim in 1971 of providing a national bypass of the capital for those travelling between, say, Sligo and Wexford has been swamped by commuter belt traffic.

The M50 has become the main street of Dublin's North American-style "edge city".

Its planning was atrocious. The "C-ring" motorway, as it used to be called, was built in four phases, each of which had a different name - Western Parkway, Northern Cross Route, Southern Cross Route and South Eastern Motorway - and took nearly 20 years to complete.

The design was sub-standard, even for a motorway projected to carry 45,000 vehicles a day. Instead of free-flowing "clover-leaf" junctions, which are standard internationally, the M50 got peculiarly Irish "roundabout interchanges" - to save money on land acquisition.

These roundabouts soon had to be supplemented by slip roads to facilitate left-turning traffic.

Traffic lights also had to be installed because drivers here were unaccustomed to the rules of the road for roundabouts, although no motorways elsewhere have traffic lights.

Now the four running lanes are to be increased to six and each of the interchanges remade, in spaghetti-junction style, to cater for the huge volume of traffic; the new overbridge proposed for the Red Cow is reminiscent of Saddam Hussein's crossed-swords bridge in Baghdad.

"Huge traffic generators", "peculiarly Irish". That says it all, and describes very well the kind of thing that happened with Galway's "ring road". More on Frank's 2006 article here.

Time will tell whether Galway gets its bypass and whether the fatheads can be taken down a peg or three and forced to curtail their greed and stupidity.

One good thing the Greens did while in government was to introduce the Planning Bill. It remains to be seen whether this legislation will prevent or mitigate any recurrence of the criminal excesses that were a cardinal feature of the Celtic Casino years.

antoobrien

I would have hoped that the city council would have learned the lesson that Dublin seem to have learned that traffic light controlled major junctions don't work with major traffic flows. This is the primary reason that The N4 @ Palmerstown & the N4/M50 Interchange have been upgraded to ensure that the majority traffic (i.e. East-West) have been priorities and joining traffic have been re-routed slightly. Similar works are under tender for Newlands Cross (on the N7).

Several of the junctions are probably not suitable for free flow junctions but the "magic roundabout" could easily be adapted to a Palmerstown sytle layout - drop either the Headford road or the Sean Mulvoy - Bridge road about 20/30 feet, put the other road over it in a flyover and use lights to control the turns. There would have to be other changes like making the Bothermore & Tuam Rd out only and Monivea Rd - College Rd/Lough Atalia in only so as to reduce crossing turns to accommodate this, but anything has to be better than just putting lights in.

anny

there is absolutely no need to change the traffic system as traffic flows much better with roundabouts...it will also save the government 6million....maybe they should use some of that money instead to teach drivers how to use a roundabout. Take the moneenageisha junction.....that is a clear illustration that "smart lights" are not the apt future for galway city infrastructure. if people are "afraid" of roundabouts then get yourselves bus passes

Amazotheamazing

Roundabouts or traffic lights won't make massive difference imo, as long as Galway drivers are allowed be among the worst in Ireland. Bad driving is the norm in Galway rather than the exception.

Iwannahurl

"Planning" decisions that generate unnecessary and unsustainable levels of traffic affect all sorts of drivers.

The general standard of driving should not dictate spatial planning and urban development policies.

Mrs OBumble

anny wrote: »

there is absolutely no need to change the traffic system as traffic flows much better with roundabouts... if people are "afraid" of roundabouts then get yourselves bus passes

I use a weekly or monthly bus pass - because I live in the city centre and choose not to run a car.

However this means I need to cross a major roundabout as a pedestrian twice a day: trust me, the "fear" that any driver feels at a RAB is way less than what I experience every day.

The worst bit is when a well-meaning-but driver decides to stop and let me across: there's always the the chance that the vehicle behind will rear-end them, or (at two lane roads) that someone less savvy than me will cross at the same time but not pause after the first lane to check for rogue motorbikes etc nipping between the cars.

yer man!

JustMary wrote: »

However this means I need to cross a major roundabout as a pedestrian twice a day: trust me, the "fear" that any driver feels at a RAB is way less than what I experience every day.

The worst bit is when a well-meaning-but driver decides to stop and let me across: there's always the the chance that the vehicle behind will rear-end them, or (at two lane roads) that someone less savvy than me will cross at the same time but not pause after the first lane to check for rogue motorbikes etc nipping between the cars.

Zebra crossings would be handy eh? cheaper than traffic lights and quicker for pedestrians and motorists. There was an article in the city tribune about it recently, an MEP blasted the city council over installing expensive traffic light pedestrian crossings when they simply were not needed.