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

Seamus Quirke roadworks merge

Options
1…1819212324…38

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    You mean BótharLeChéile juction with SQR, rather than the entrance to Westside Shopping Centre?


  • Options
    #603
    Storm 10
    Registered Users Posts: 5,920 ✭✭✭Storm 10


    snubbleste wrote: »
    You mean BótharLeChéile juction with SQR, rather than the entrance to Westside Shopping Centre?

    Yes should have corrected that but it looks good there at present.


  • Options
    #604
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    Storm 10 wrote: »
    Yes should have corrected that but it looks good there at present.

    It does from a motorist point of view.. If you are a pedestrian or cyclist at that junction well tis a different story.


  • Options
    #605
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    According to this weeks Sentinel, the 404 bus will use the bus lanes. So now we know why they've been working for the past few days.


  • Options
    #606
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    Trees transplanted onto the meridian between the roundabout west to gleanndara. New streetlights erected on footpaths the same stretch.
    Bus shelters actually being used :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    A lot of tarmacing going on at entrance to Westside by Maxol.


  • Options
    #608
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,967 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    Hate the railings been installed in the central median.


  • Options
    #609
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    what_traffic wrote: »
    Hate the railings been installed in the central median.
    Is it cos they be black?..


  • Options
    #610
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    snubbleste wrote: »
    Is it cos they be black?..

    It's because they give out the message "please don't feed the pedestrians - it only encourages them".


  • Options
    #611
    KevR
    Registered Users Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    snubbleste wrote: »
    Is it cos they be black?..
    I'm really glad they didn't put in hideous plain steel barriers. Painted barriers are so much more classy. Would have been great if they put in painted light poles, traffic light poles and sign poles also but we can't have it all..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,967 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    KevR wrote: »
    I'm really glad they didn't put in hideous plain steel barriers. Painted barriers are so much more classy. Would have been great if they put in painted light poles, traffic light poles and sign poles also but we can't have it all..

    These railings i.e street junk/litter are such a waste of money and a waste of steel.


  • Options
    #613
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Surely the barriers will stop pedestrians from wandering willy nilly across the cycle and vehicular traffic and will force them to use the pedestrian crossings. They are the norm in the UK for years for that reason.


  • Options
    #614
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Surely the barriers will stop pedestrians from wandering willy nilly across the cycle and vehicular traffic and will force them to use the pedestrian crossings. They are the norm in the UK for years for that reason.

    If you have to put up railings to force pedestrians away from their natural lines of travel to crossings that are in the wrong places then it is arguable that by that fact your design is shown to be negligent and incompetent.

    Therefore negligent and incompetent design is arguably also the norm in the UK


  • Options
    #615
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Not necessarily. Pedestrians will always try to shorten their route as much as possible. Sometimes this isn't possible because it could be dangerous having people running across the road at arbitrary places.
    The railings I assume are there to discourage this behaviour and encourage pedestrians to make use of the marked crossings.
    As SQR will become a four lane road, rather that two lanes, it will increase danger for people running across.

    Does anyone have updated plans for the works, with pics of how it will look?


  • Options
    #616
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    biko wrote: »
    Not necessarily. Pedestrians will always try to shorten their route as much as possible. Sometimes this isn't possible because it could be dangerous having people running across the road at arbitrary places.
    The railings I assume are there to discourage this behaviour and encourage pedestrians to make use of the marked crossings.
    As SQR will become a four lane road, rather that two lanes, it will increase danger for people running across.

    Does anyone have updated plans for the works, with pics of how it will look?

    Or even pics or a couple of pushpins in google maps to show current progress.


  • Options
    #617
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    biko wrote: »
    Not necessarily. Pedestrians will always try to shorten their route as much as possible. Sometimes this isn't possible because it could be dangerous having people running across the road at arbitrary places.
    The railings I assume are there to discourage this behaviour and encourage pedestrians to make use of the marked crossings.
    As SQR will become a four lane road, rather that two lanes, it will increase danger for people running across.

    Does anyone have updated plans for the works, with pics of how it will look?

    In this case I doubt that the main issue will be with "arbitrary" locations. I suspect it will occur at entirely predictable locations. The main one being the bus stops at Corrib park. I strongly suspect that these will operate the way the bus stops at GMIT currently operate and intending or alighting passengers will cross the road at the bus stops rather than walk to the roundabout or the community centre.

    If you are going to have people crossing the road anyway - then is it really a good idea to give motorists the idea that you have created a pedestrian free corridor?


  • Options
    #618
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    In this case I doubt that the main issue will be with "arbitrary" locations. I suspect it will occur at entirely predictable locations. The main one being the bus stops at Corrib park. I strongly suspect that these will operate the way the bus stops at GMIT currently operate and intending or alighting passengers will cross the road at the bus stops rather than walk to the roundabout or the community centre.

    Sounds like a perfect spot for a pedestrian footbridge.


  • Options
    #619
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Sounds like a perfect spot for a pedestrian footbridge.

    Yes it does. The problem is - as with pedestrian railings - would a footbridge at this location really stop people crossing the road? This is not an arterial dual carriageway. This is a "city centre" multi-modal corridor in a 50km/h zone adjacent to, and the main access route to, residential housing, retail developments, a community centre, a church, a University and a teaching hospital. The location dictates the type of users present and also how they can be expected to use the road.


  • Options
    #620
    Malice
    Registered Users Posts: 15,065 ✭✭✭✭Malice


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Sounds like a perfect spot for a pedestrian footbridge.
    Oh if only!


  • Options
    #621
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Yes it does. The problem is - as with pedestrian railings - would a footbridge at this location really stop people crossing the road? This is not an arterial dual carriageway. This is a "city centre" multi-modal corridor in a 50km/h zone adjacent to, and the main access route to, residential housing, retail developments, a community centre, a church, a University and a teaching hospital. The location dictates the type of users present and also how they can be expected to use the road.

    I've seen something similar work in Dublin. There's a footbridge in Fairview, with a school right beside it (okay the road is 6, lanes not 4) - pretty much the same setup as SQR, 50km speed limit etc.

    Will it stop people trying to cross the road?
    No, there are people that will do as they please even if there is something safer available, e.g. the people from Castlepark than run across the DC to get to tom hogans.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    Malice wrote: »
    Oh if only!

    Well if you can prove locus standi and if you have the resources to go to the High Court, I can provide you with the background documents necessary to seek an order to provide the footbridge specified in the planning permission for this scheme.

    I still think people will cross the roads at the bus stops anyway. :D


  • Options
    #623
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I've seen something similar work in Dublin. There's a footbridge in Fairview, with a school right beside it (okay the road is 6, lanes not 4) - pretty much the same setup as SQR, 50km speed limit etc.

    Not the same I'm afraid - the Fairview example does not have a nice central island ready made as a proper waiting area for pedestrians.

    I agree regarding Tom Hogans, that is the kind of place you should have a footbridge.


  • Options
    #624
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Not the same I'm afraid - the Fairview example does not have a nice central island ready made as a proper waiting area for pedestrians.

    I haven't been out to SQR lately but if they'd have put in a bridge, the pedestrian island (a concept I really detest in the middle of a road) wouldn't be necessary. The example is (traffic/pedestrian island aside) pretty much exactly what you've described - accessed by young and old with educational & recreational facilities right beside them.
    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    I agree regarding Tom Hogans, that is the kind of place you should have a footbridge.

    Hogans is not supposed to have pedestrian access, and there is no preexisting "natural" crossing point (the hogans site would have been accessed by going in past the Digital car park before the DC was built - imo they should never have gotten pp there).

    I don't know what you're agreeing with because I think what happens out there is dangerous and should be prevented, for the pedestrians own safety and certainly not encouraged (which is what I was trying to point out). The walls in the area should be 10' higher to prevent people from being so f**king stupid.

    So why on gods' good earth would you cater for people doing something that's (a) dangerous and (b) the facility itself is not designed for?


  • Options
    #625
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    antoobrien wrote: »
    So why on gods' good earth would you cater for people doing something that's (a) dangerous and (b) the facility itself is not designed for?

    Because you have just put a 24hr shop beside a large area of residential housing already poorly served by retail services. Therefore by that fact, you are inviting people who live beside it to use that facility by whatever means they have available. Presumably if there was a bridge there it would no longer be dangerous?


  • Options
    #626
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Again, does anyone have updated plans? In the old plans there is a RB that doesn't seem to happen now (at least it doesn't look that way). The original plans also actually show a pedestrian road bridge.

    www.galwaycity.ie/AllServices/RoadsandTraffic/StudiesandSchemes/ImprovementBishopODonnellRd-SeamusQuirkeRd/


  • Options
    #627
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,967 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    Because you have just put a 24hr shop beside a large area of residential housing already poorly served by retail services. Therefore by that fact, you are inviting people who live beside it to use that facility by whatever means they have available. Presumably if there was a bridge there it would no longer be dangerous?

    Since McGreals closed down - seem to get more people doing this now.


  • Options
    #628
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Ok I found this on www.galwaycity.ie
    Scheme Layout www.galwaycity.ie/GTU/220910_01.pdf

    No RBs and what appears to be a footbrigde close to Hanley Oaks hotel.


  • Options
    #629
    what_traffic
    Registered Users Posts: 4,967 ✭✭✭what_traffic


    biko wrote: »
    Ok I found this on www.galwaycity.ie
    Scheme Layout www.galwaycity.ie/GTU/220910_01.pdf

    No RBs and what appears to be a footbrigde close to Hanley Oaks hotel.

    Nope thats just a cross section indication - thats a drawing of the "latest" scheme i.e the one they are building. Have to get an older drawing to see the footbridge plans


  • Options
    #630
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    biko wrote: »
    Scheme Layout www.galwaycity.ie/GTU/220910_01.pdf

    No RBs and what appears to be a footbrigde close to Hanley Oaks hotel.

    When it went through an Bord Pleanala there was a footbridge planned around Aldi.

    An Bord Pleanála canned roundabouts and put the cycle lanes onroad through junctions. Traffic light junctions (even those with cycle boxes and cycle lanes) are much safer for peds than roundabouts and that footbridge may have been dropped.

    Your link shows the plans that went to tender although a footbridge at Aldi can easily be built separately in future. I see onroad 'staggered' pedestrian crossing points outside the Oaks Hotel Biko by the way..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Surely the barriers will stop pedestrians from wandering willy nilly across the cycle and vehicular traffic and will force them to use the pedestrian crossings. They are the norm in the UK for years for that reason.
    I don't agree with this. Look at the pedestrian crossing at Dunnes Terryland, there is no barrier on the median there yet that designated crossing point has seen a serious amount of pedestrian-motorist collisions resulting in deaths.


Advertisement