Bodkin / Headford Road roundabout replacement [Lights are on!]

intellectual dosser

Going westbound over the bridge from Sean Mulvoy during heavy traffic seems better lately, you have to wait on the Sean Mulvoy a few minutes but then the bridge is clear because of the congestion at the roundabout - I never happen to come eastbound during heavy traffic so I say the workers should down tools now and leave the way it is!

kevin65

I'm steering clear of until the lights are switched on. I was through this temporary roundabout on the way home from work and my nerves were shot.

Iwannahurl

intellectual dosser wrote: »

Going westbound over the bridge from Sean Mulvoy during heavy traffic seems better lately, you have to wait on the Sean Mulvoy a few minutes but then the bridge is clear because of the congestion at the roundabout - I never happen to come eastbound during heavy traffic so I say the workers should down tools now and leave the way it is!

Your observation would have to be confirmed by actual traffic counts and other objective measures, but it's an interesting point all the same.

It could well be the case that motorists are avoiding the area, or reducing their car travel, because of the works, in which case the traffic will actually become lighter.

It's a well-known phenomenon known colloquially as disappearing traffic, and it has been documented in numerous studies:

Taking the results as a whole, there was an average reduction of 41% of the traffic flows on the roads whose capacity had been reduced, of which rather less than half could be detected as reappearing on alternative routes. Thus, on average, about 25% of the traffic disappeared. Analysis of surveys and traffic counts indicated that the disappearance was accounted for by between 15 and 20 different behavioural responses, including changing to other modes of transport, other destinations, a reduction in the frequency of trips, and car-sharing.

snubbleste

Both bike lanes to the bridge are closed.
Eastbound closed to facilitate a generator blocking it and of course to prioritise pedestrians getting around the huge electronic sign aimed at motorists.
Westbound is closed due to actual ripping up the bike path.

What diversions are put in place? 0
How many ramps are put in place for cyclists to get up and down at the closure points? 0

Iwannahurl

I was up that way on Saturday. Had to turn back at one point because the new footpath was blocked by an ESB pole. I was confused at first and then I realised that it was an existing street light they were just building around. There was an old roundabout sign a couple of metres further on, also sprouting out of the footpath.

It's a work in progress (obviously ) and it's likely to be messy for all road users until it's 100% finished.

My main concern at this stage is that the alleged "improved access" provided by the new aligments will be less than satisfactory for pedestrians and cyclists. For example, the new entrance/exit for the shopping centre (opposite Curry's) is pretty dire for pedestrians, imo.

ballinadog

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I was up that way on Saturday. Had to turn back at one point because the new footpath was blocked by an ESB pole. I was confused at first and then I realised that it was an existing street light they were just building around. There was an old roundabout sign a couple of metres further on, also sprouting out of the footpath.

It's a work in progress (obviously ) and it's likely to be messy for all road users until it's 100% finished.

My main concern at this stage is that the alleged "improved access" provided by the new aligments will be less than satisfactory for pedestrians and cyclists. For example, the new entrance/exit for the shopping centre (opposite Curry's) is pretty dire for pedestrians, imo.

Wait until the project is finished before passing judgement!

BlurstMonkey

Nothing wrong with a running commentary. This place is for discussion.

ballinadog

BlurstMonkey wrote: »

Nothing wrong with a running commentary. This place is for discussion.

I agree with you on the running commentary, after all it keeps us in check, 😉, however my issue was with the line "will be less than satisfactory". Poster seems to imply that the current alignment is the final layout which I'm pointing out is not the case...

BlurstMonkey

ballinadog wrote: »

I agree with you on the running commentary, after all it keeps us in check, 😉, however my issue was with the line "will be less than satisfactory". Poster seems to imply that the current alignment is the final layout which I'm pointing out is not the case...

Ya, that's kind of a non issue, they can say what they want like.

ballinadog

BlurstMonkey wrote: »

Ya, that's kind of a non issue, they can say what they want like.

Ha? So anyone can say what they like yet I can't suggest sound advice i.e wait until the project is finished before determining what facilities are like?

University conferring is on this week so there might be more traffic than usual in the area.

Iwannahurl

ballinadog wrote: »

I agree with you on the running commentary, after all it keeps us in check, 😉, however my issue was with the line "will be less than satisfactory". Poster seems to imply that the current alignment is the final layout which I'm pointing out is not the case...

I'm looking at the scheme as a whole, including the new "improved access" to Galway Shopping Centre (GSC).

Clearly the position of certain features such as street lights and signage will be different when the works are completed.

Other important details seem to have been finalised, however, and I have concerns about those.

For example, why is there only one footpath into GSC from Sean Mulvoy Road when the plans appear to show two?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The drawings show a footpath on both side of the entrance from Sean Mulvoy Road.

http://www.galwaycity.ie/N6/130212_01.pdf

In reality there is only one. How can that be?

And what of the new GSS entrance/exit as shown in the photos below? Will that be different when the works are completed? Will pedestrians be able to pass without having to weave between vehicles straddling the new "courtesy crossing"? Will vehicles continue to turn right into the GSC at this junction, thereby adding a fourth (and potentially unexpected) stream of traffic for pedestrians to negotiate as they traverse this uncontrolled crossing?

Will pedestrians be able to cross the road, without having to run or otherwise dodge traffic, from the Headford Road Retail Park (Elverys, Smyths, Halfords, Currys etc) to the GSC and back?

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Your observation would have to be confirmed by actual traffic counts and other objective measures, but it's an interesting point all the same.

It could well be the case that motorists are avoiding the area, or reducing their car travel, because of the works, in which case the traffic will actually become lighter.

It's a well-known phenomenon known colloquially as disappearing traffic, and it has been documented in numerous studies:

Taking the results as a whole, there was an average reduction of 41% of the traffic flows on the roads whose capacity had been reduced, of which rather less than half could be detected as reappearing on alternative routes. Thus, on average, about 25% of the traffic disappeared. Analysis of surveys and traffic counts indicated that the disappearance was accounted for by between 15 and 20 different behavioural responses, including changing to other modes of transport, other destinations, a reduction in the frequency of trips, and car-sharing.

Good observation.
Galway City Council released a press release today. Confirms some of your points, note that traffic reduction is not one of them.

http://www.galwaycity.ie/GeneralNews/211013_03.html
"
1. The current works on the Headford Road / Sean Mulvoy Junction (i.e. former Bodkin Roundabout): these upgrade works to the busiest junction in Galway City, have resulted in a displacement of traffic away from this junction onto other routes, resulting in increased journey times on these other routes.
"

ballinadog

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm looking at the scheme as a whole, including the new "improved access" to Galway Shopping Centre (GSS).

Clearly the position of certain features such as street lights and signage will be different when the works are completed.

Other important details seem to have been finalised, however, and I have concerns about those.

For example, why is there only one footpath into GSS from Sean Mulvoy Road when the plans appear to show two?



And what of the new GSS entrance/exit as shown in the photos below? Will that be different when the works are completed? Will pedestrians be able to pass without having to weave between vehicles straddling the new "courtesy crossing"? Will vehicles continue to turn right into the GSS at this junction, thereby adding a fourth (and potentially unexpected) stream of traffic for pedestrians to negotiate as they traverse this uncontrolled crossing?

Will pedestrians be able to cross the road, without having to run or otherwise dodge traffic, from the Headford Road Retail Park (Elverys, Smyths, Halfords, Currys etc) to the GSS and back?

We have yet to build a conc island preventing right hand turns into the gsc, the exit to the retail park will be getting amended and with regards the weaving pedestrians, it's a non compliance of the rules of the road by motorists that cause this as your photo clearly shows a yield/stop line which the cars have encroached over. Finally, On Sean Mulvoy entrance, what takes
Place behind the wall (one footpath or two) is the gsc's business and is not part of this gcc contract... In fact that footpath has been in place long before these works commenced. I will point out tho that your copy of the general arrangement drawing is not correct...

snubbleste

There are only three other routes?
Lough Atalia/College Road
Bohermore
Dyke Rd

what_traffic

ballinadog wrote: »

We have yet to build a conc island preventing right hand turns into the gsc, the exit to the retail park will be getting amended and with regards the weaving pedestrians, it's a non compliance of the rules of the road by motorists that cause this as your photo clearly shows a yield/stop line which the cars have encroached over.

Some interesting posts ballinadog.
Can you provide further clarification. Will these crossings be painted as Zebra crossings or will be marked as per Iwannahurl's photos? .

spurscormac

ballinadog wrote: »

We have yet to build a conc island preventing right hand turns into the gsc, the exit to the retail park will be getting amended and with regards the weaving pedestrians, it's a non compliance of the rules of the road by motorists that cause this as your photo clearly shows a yield/stop line which the cars have encroached over.

While I agree with you, I criticise the road design here - how in the name of hell is a car to ever safely exit from that point by staying behind the yield line?
Except in the case of bumper-to-bumper traffic, if they stay back,they won't be able to safely exit until there's a clear road from there to the roundabout.
What about line of sight for a right-turning exit through a left turning car looking back towards town for oncoming traffic?

Wouldn't it have been much safer for all concerned to route the pedestrians back a few metres towards the shopping centre car park allowing enough space for a car to get as far as the lane & choose a safe time to exit, all the while providing a clear path for pedestrians to safely negotiate a crossing ?

ballinadog

spurscormac wrote: »

While I agree with you, I criticise the road design here - how in the name of hell is a car to ever safely exit from that point by staying behind the yield line?
Except in the case of bumper-to-bumper traffic, if they stay back,they won't be able to safely exit until there's a clear road from there to the roundabout.
What about line of sight for a right-turning exit through a left turning car looking back towards town for oncoming traffic?

Wouldn't it have been much safer for all concerned to route the pedestrians back a few metres towards the shopping centre car park allowing enough space for a car to get as far as the lane & choose a safe time to exit, all the while providing a clear path for pedestrians to safely negotiate a crossing ?

In pricipal I agree with you with regards shoving it back, however you have to realise people's hands are tied to an extent... If you shove it back any further towards gsc you are all of a sudden putting the public onto private property and how do you think gsc would like that? You think they'd allow it? Who pays the compo if god forbid an accident? Would you allow a footpath be laid thru your front garden? Personally speaking, I pity the current generation in the council, designers, NRA etc as there hands are tied so much, they can only work with what they've got. With regards your yield line query, the yellow box starts sufficiently close to town to keep traffic an ample distance back to allow a safe exit. Again if someone encroaches on the yellow box it's a breach of the rules of the road!

Iwannahurl

Sure there's a Yield line, but will we trust that motorists are really going to yield? To us lowly pedestrians? On an uncontrolled "courtesy" crossing?

And will we get a receipt?

Why is it not a pedestrian-priority zebra crossing?

floattuber_lee

Lets get to the crux of the problem, the council have well and truely mucked this up! hope it gets better when the lights get turned on because now its just down right dangerous!

El_Dangeroso

Crossing at the moment as a pedestrian is utterly treacherous.

Cars are not yielding at all to pedestrians. I basically end up walking in front of cars to get across which is not what I want to do.

4th November can't come fast enough!

snubbleste

This morning, motorists had to detour through the retail park at McDonalds to emerge at Currys as there was some work happening on the road. Can't see the retail park being happy with the extra wear & tear

zarquon

snubbleste wrote: »

This morning, motorists had to detour through the retail park at McDonalds to emerge at Currys as there was some work happening on the road. Can't see the retail park being happy with the extra wear & tear

They should be completing that work in the evenings at off-peak times or at night to minimise disruptions. The contractors are probably not too keen on paying overtime though and happy to create rush hour disruption to save a few euro

antoobrien

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Cars are not yielding at all to pedestrians. I basically end up walking in front of cars to get across which is not what I want to do.

That's more than a little bit irresponsible and potentially dangerous to you and others. I've been rear-ended (in Dublin) because of sudden stops caused by behaviour like this (fortunately nobody was injured). I try to stop when I see pedestrians and cyclists crossing, but it's not always possible to do so safely and it can be dangerous to do so.

So if you insist on doing this, for gods sakes make sure the driver can see you - don't assume they will - and they can stop in time (not a guarantee with construction sites like this).

For those preaching consideration, consider this:
It's hard to see where pedestrians (& dismounted cyclists) actually are at this junction, even when they are wearing reflective materials. The barriers don't help matters.

If the builders are reading, please put some blinkers on the pedestrian crossings, the markings are very hard to see, even in daylight.

As a general comment, it's time to start wearing reflective belts/jackets in this area because it's hard to see people in dark clothes and street-lighting is no guarantee that bright clothes will let you be seen before it's too late.

This morning while driving to work, I noticed just one person wearing reflective belts/jackets (including the muppet who ran across the sean mulvoy rd wearing a balck/brown overcoat) before I got into the office at about 8.20am.

For all the hand wringing about the behaviour of drivers, pedestrians and cyclists are not helping their case with their own behaviour.

El_Dangeroso

antoobrien wrote: »

That's more than a little bit irresponsible and potentially dangerous to you and others. I've been rear-ended (in Dublin) because of sudden stops caused by behaviour like this (fortunately nobody was injured). I try to stop when I see pedestrians and cyclists crossing, but it's not always possible to do so safely and it can be dangerous to do so.

So if you insist on doing this, for gods sakes make sure the driver can see you - don't assume they will - and they can stop in time (not a guarantee with construction sites like this).

For those preaching consideration, consider this:
It's hard to see where pedestrians (& dismounted cyclists) actually are at this junction, even when they are wearing reflective materials. The barriers don't help matters.

If the builders are reading, please put some blinkers on the pedestrian crossings, the markings are very hard to see, even in daylight.

As a general comment, it's time to start wearing reflective belts/jackets in this area because it's hard to see people in dark clothes and street-lighting is no guarantee that bright clothes will let you be seen before it's too late.

This morning while driving to work, I noticed just one person wearing reflective belts/jackets (including the muppet who ran across the sean mulvoy rd wearing a balck/brown overcoat) before I got into the office at about 8.20am.

For all the hand wringing about the behaviour of drivers, pedestrians and cyclists are not helping their case with their own behaviour.

Thank you for the lecture, believe me it is in my interests to be as visible as I can, as inconvenient as it is to be rear ended in a metal box, it's far more inconvenient having your bones broken.

antoobrien

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Thank you for the lecture, believe me it is in my interests to be as visible as I can, as inconvenient as it is to be rear ended in a metal box, it's far more inconvenient having your bones broken.

Then take the hint and don't be so foolish as to put your bones in danger of being broken by doing something so irresponsible and potentially detrimental to your own health as walking out in front of traffic when you don't know they can stop (as is implied in your little rant, otherwise I can't see a good reason for the complaint as you would be able to cross safely).

If more pedestrians and cyclists were to behave less recklessly to their own health, the result would be people like me wouldn't have to point out that their complaints are more than a little hollow, hypocritical and self serving.

Iwannahurl

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Crossing at the moment as a pedestrian is utterly treacherous.

Cars are not yielding at all to pedestrians. I basically end up walking in front of cars to get across which is not what I want to do.

4th November can't come fast enough!

Anywhere at the junction, as it currently stands?

Or in a specific place?

antoobrien

I was waiting for one of our safety evangelists to post this, but since they seem to have better things to do.....

The footpath and cycle lane between currys and the pathway/entrance to Terryland Forest Park is closed (town/university side). Pedestrians (and cyclists who don't want to use the road surface) should use the path & lane on the Terryland side of the road.

El_Dangeroso

antoobrien wrote: »

Then take the hint and don't be so foolish as to put your bones in danger of being broken by doing something so irresponsible and potentially detrimental to your own health as walking out in front of traffic when you don't know they can stop (as is implied in your little rant, otherwise I can't see a good reason for the complaint as you would be able to cross safely).

If more pedestrians and cyclists were to behave less recklessly to their own health, the result would be people like me wouldn't have to point out that their complaints are more than a little hollow, hypocritical and self serving.

Don't be so condescending. You are exaggerating what I have said and assuming what I have not said. Terms like 'little rant' and 'hypocritical' show that you are not interested in respectful discussion. Welcome to the ignore button.

El_Dangeroso

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Anywhere at the junction, as it currently stands?

Or in a specific place?

All sides of the junction have this problem at the moment. Traffic seems to be so impatient at busy times they are paying no attention to pedestrians waiting to cross.