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

irisheddie85

J o e wrote: »

Came through the roundabout this evening and half six and the cycle lane was open to the road so assuming they'd finished resurfacing I cycled onto it when exiting the roundabout. However about 50m down the road it was blocked again..



Previous to that I tried to get from the roundabout over to the open fence (and onto path) that antoobrien was talking about... but that open path only led into an enclosed construction area :pac: (would have needed to go up by Currys as per earlier post). Before that I was nearly taken off the bike by a motorist coming straight across the roundabout from Sean Mulvoy Rd without giving way. Bring on 4th November! :cool:

I give up! there is just someone gone made with the power to use Road cones in Galway City is the only explanation because that can't be explained

antoobrien

irisheddie85 wrote: »

There is a small bit of road works going on at the exit of the retail Park. I assumed this was to facilitate a right turn towards wood Quay as you exit and over come this problem

If this is not the case, then the new right turns at Dunnes & Dun Na Coirbe should help.

huggs2

antoobrien wrote: »

It looks as if you may have to go to GSC first, but on the bright side you should be still able to use the "main" entrance/exit on the woodquay side of the car park to get across the road.

There are plans to have the current entrance to the galway retail park a signalised junction with pedestrian crossing which should solve a lot of current problems.

Iwannahurl

huggs2 wrote: »

There are plans to have the current entrance to the galway retail park a signalised junction with pedestrian crossing which should solve a lot of current problems.

I hadn't realised that.

Related to the Bodkin scheme? Would you have a link perhaps?

Sniipe

They better hurry up and fix the lights. This guy couldn't wait in traffic any more


1) Hops out of a car after a few sups of his can. (no image available - I wasn't able to tell the future)
2) Pisses on Dunnes Stores in broad daylight during a rush hour at 2pm (for all of the headford road traffic to see)
3) Hops back into this Cavan reg car and joins his like minded friends all dressed the same.

El_Dangeroso

I don't know what's weirder, the incident you describe or the fact that you went to so much trouble to accurately document it.:P

Gremlinertia

Aah the infamous (ahem) Letrim day is not immune to Galway traffic woes!.

Kevin Moran

Sniipe wrote: »

They better hurry up and fix the lights. This guy couldn't wait in traffic any more

1) Hops out of a car after a few sups of his can.
2) Pisses on Dunnes Stores in broad daylight during a rush hour at 2pm.
3) Hops back into this Cavan reg car and joins his like minded friends all dressed the same.

He couldn't even make the starting 15....... pfffft! :pac:

huggs2

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I hadn't realised that.

Related to the Bodkin scheme? Would you have a link perhaps?

Humble apologies. i got the wrong junction. Its terryland retail park.

http://www.galwaycity.ie/GeneralNews/290813_02.html

Iwannahurl

Sniipe wrote: »

They better hurry up and fix the lights. This guy couldn't wait in traffic any more

http://i.imgur.com/MbMZ8ap.jpg

1) Hops out of a car after a few sups of his can.
2) Pisses on Dunnes Stores in broad daylight during a rush hour at 2pm.
3) Hops back into this Cavan reg car and joins his like minded friends all dressed the same.

The US National Security Agency is recruiting.

dastardly00

huggs2 wrote: »

There are plans to have the current entrance to the galway retail park a signalised junction with pedestrian crossing which should solve a lot of current problems.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I hadn't realised that.

Related to the Bodkin scheme? Would you have a link perhaps?

huggs2 wrote: »

Humble apologies. i got the wrong junction. Its terryland retail park.

http://www.galwaycity.ie/GeneralNews/290813_02.html

I noticed as I was passing this evening that they do seem to be revamping the exit from the Headford Road Retail Park. The 'new' exit looks like it will be aligned perpendicular to the road, so maybe it will be possible to turn right and go in the direction of Woodquay.
Sorry I couldn't take a fancy photos like some of the rest of ye! :pac:

Sniipe

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I don't know what's weirder, the incident you describe or the fact that you went to so much trouble to accurately document it.:P

have you no computer skills? 2 photos, google maps, paint.net + 2 mins = Letrim lad and his small lad.

ballinadog

galwaycyclist wrote: »

With regret but I dont think so. I think that if someone went out and blocked the two westbound traffic lanes up near the bridge, for no apparent reason, the wails and protests would be deafening. If, in order to get around the obstruction, motorists were being forced to expose themselves to oncoming traffic coming at speeds in excess of the limit then there would be all manner public accusations and negative media coverage.

Anyway I took a walk down there this evening. I could see no signs of any description indicating any diversions for cyclists. Nor were there any signs indicating that the westbound path had been blocked up ahead.

The westbound section that was being resurfaced was all of 90m in length and cordoned off with cones. So that "excuse" seems to have been spurious. Funnily enough someone had put a little tarmac ramp up onto the footpath up near Currys but on the Headford rd arm. I didnt bother going as far as the bridge.

"For no apparent reason"

I myself personally erected that fence blocking the aforementioned westbound paths to ensure pedestrians travelling eastbound avail of the diversion through the forest park...

ballinadog

antoobrien wrote: »

There's a filter from Woodqauy to QB (wasn't in the original proposal), shorter filter on Sean Mulvoy Rd approach to the junction (by 30m-50m). The entrance to GSC is about 30m closer to the junction than the part 8 report suggested.

Not sure why they're splitting the N6 slip/left filter into two lanes without actually giving it two lanes in (which is not being done as it'd make the "straight on" dangerous for cyclists).

Also they should mark the approaches to all the splits in the cycle lanes (4 in total) with yellow boxes (not in either diagram), so as to prevent them from getting blocked by backed up motor traffic.

There is no slip lane from Woodquay to QB. We just made a temporary one to facilitate the diversions we had to put in place whilst resurfacing across the junction...

ballinadog

J o e wrote: »

Like so? Not ideal but yes an alternative route. :P

I realise you have added the tongue in cheek smiley and so this reply is not directed directly at you, however 2 questions:

1. On your red line indicating the diversion, it is apparent one would have to be travelling on the road whilst goin around the roundabout in the first place so why not just continue on the road out the QB

2. Under the old roundabout system how did a cyclist get up onto the cycle lane on the QB as there were no ramps? One would have had to dismount and lift bike up over kerb onto paths. If one is determined to use the path now, one can cycle on rd until past the obstruction and then just do the exact same as one would have had bad to do in the past...

snubbleste

ballinadog wrote: »

I realise you have added the tongue in cheek smiley and so this reply is not directed directly at you, however 2 questions:
1. On your red line indicating the diversion, it is apparent one would have to be travelling on the road whilst goin around the roundabout in the first place so why not just continue on the road out the QB
2. Under the old roundabout system how did a cyclist get up onto the cycle lane on the QB as there were no ramps? One would have had to dismount and lift bike up over kerb onto paths. If one is determined to use the path now, one can cycle on rd until past the obstruction and then just do the exact same as one would have had bad to do in the past...

A cyclist would've navigated the roundabout, mounted the lowered kerb and gained access to the bike path.

The point is that cyclists and pedestrians are being treated as far less important than motorists during the construction works.

galwaycyclist

ballinadog wrote: »

"For no apparent reason"

I myself personally erected that fence blocking the aforementioned westbound paths to ensure pedestrians travelling eastbound avail of the diversion through the forest park...

Exactly. You had no reason to block and endanger people using the cycle path in its intended manner. If you wished to put up a sign advising eastbound pedestrians of the diversion you could have done so without blocking the cycle path.

As you note yourself - the assumption would be that cyclists who had cleared the roadworks at the roundabout might then lift the bike up onto the kerb to proceed on the cycle path.

ballinadog wrote: »

2. Under the old roundabout system how did a cyclist get up onto the cycle lane on the QB as there were no ramps? One would have had to dismount and lift bike up over kerb onto paths. If one is determined to use the path now, one can cycle on rd until past the obstruction and then just do the exact same as one would have had bad to do in the past...

This is the point. The design of these "cycle paths" - which were incompetently designed from day 1 - has always required cyclists to hop some kerb or other. Originally, cyclists were apparently expected to use the dished kerbs meant for pedestrians - which always left the question of what cyclists were meant to do if pedestrians were also using them.

i.e. cycle further on and hop up somewhere else.

antoobrien

ballinadog wrote: »

There is no slip lane from Woodquay to QB. We just made a temporary one to facilitate the diversions we had to put in place whilst resurfacing across the junction...

The bit highlighted in red was not in the original drawings.



Slip might be too string a word (filter might be better) but it's not in the original part 8 drawings.

ballinadog

antoobrien wrote: »

The bit highlighted in red was not in the original drawings.



Slip might be too string a word (filter might be better) but it's not in the original part 8 drawings.

Apologies, I thought you were talking about this bit highlighted in red... We were using this as a makeshift slip lane for diversions whilst resurfacing works took place...

ballinadog

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Exactly. You had no reason to block and endanger people using the cycle path in its intended manner. If you wished to put up a sign advising eastbound pedestrians of the diversion you could have done so without blocking the cycle path.

Department of Transports Traffic Signs Manual (basically our bible) - 8.3.11.3 Where footways or off-road cycle tracks are affected by construction or maintenance work, a safe route should be provided for pedestrians and cyclists, at all times past the works area. This may be done by channelling the footway or track, or providing a route on the carriageway by using suitable barriers and, where necessary, providing the appropriate signs indicating that the footway is closed.

"in its intended manner" - for the love of god we were rebuilding it! how could it be in use whilst it was being reconstructed!

antoobrien

ballinadog wrote: »

Apologies, I thought you were talking about this bit highlighted in red... We were using this as a makeshift slip lane for diversions whilst resurfacing works took place...

I am, and the diagram indicates that it's going to remain. So, to clarify, is this a temporary routing or will the slip/filter remain and the road markings be as the new diagram indicate?

ballinadog

antoobrien wrote: »

I am, and the diagram indicates that it's going to remain. So, to clarify, is this a temporary routing or will the slip/filter remain and the road markings be as the new diagram indicate?

This bit in red? No

antoobrien

ballinadog wrote: »

This bit in red? No

No not that bit, though I can see why you'd be confused by the use "slip" (and you quoted my image but didn't embed your own).

No I'm referring to the bit I highlighted, with the left turn arrow indicated. Will that bit remain?

galwaycyclist

ballinadog wrote: »

Department of Transports Traffic Signs Manual (basically our bible) - 8.3.11.3 Where footways or off-road cycle tracks are affected by construction or maintenance work, a safe route should be provided for pedestrians and cyclists, at all times past the works area. This may be done by channelling the footway or track, or providing a route on the carriageway by using suitable barriers and, where necessary, providing the appropriate signs indicating that the footway is closed.

"in its intended manner" - for the love of god we were rebuilding it! how could it be in use whilst it was being reconstructed!

So what "safe route" was identified for Westbound cyclists and where were the signs indicating its existence?

What route was provided on the westbound carriageway using what barriers?

What signs were in place indicating that westbound cycle path had been closed at a place completely outside the influence of the roadworks?

Edit: You are only rebuilding a 90m long section of the westbound track immediately adjacent to the junction. Or is there some secret plan to reconstruct the bridge that we arent aware of?

ballinadog

antoobrien wrote: »

No not that bit, though I can see why you'd be confused by the use "slip".

No I'm referring to the bit I highlighted, with the left turn arrow indicated. Will that bit remain?

Was thinking alright... Ya it will remain...

antoobrien

ballinadog wrote: »

Was thinking alright... Ya it will remain...

Cheers, sorry for the confusion.

ballinadog

galwaycyclist wrote: »

So what "safe route" was identified for Westbound cyclists and where were the signs indicating its existence?

What route was provided on the westbound carriageway using what barriers?

What signs were in place indicating that westbound cycle path had been closed at a place completely outside the influence of the roadworks?

1. The existing carriageway
2. Barriers/Cones keeping people out of the works area ensuring people follow the route i.e the existing carriageway for cyclists
3. Signs are back where the detour starts on the town approach outside currys, similar to the "obstruction" on the QB

ballinadog

[QUOTE=Edit: You are only rebuilding a 90m long section of the westbound track immediately adjacent to the junction. Or is there some secret plan to reconstruct the bridge that we arent aware of?[/QUOTE]

Correct, however the alternative to diverting the pedestrians that far back from the works was to divert them closer to the works by asking them to cross the 4 lanes of the dual carriageway, the 4 lanes of the headford outbound rd, the 4 lanes of the SM rd and the 4 lanes of the headford inbound rd. Which do you think is the safer option?

galwaycyclist

ballinadog wrote: »

1. The existing carriageway
2. Barriers/Cones keeping people out of the works area ensuring people follow the route i.e the existing carriageway for cyclists
3. Signs are back where the detour starts on the town approach outside currys, similar to the "obstruction" on the QB

Sorry but in my view your responses are not adequate and are to be frank disingenuous and reflect poorly on your judegment. Either way as it seems the obstruction has now been cleared there is little to be gained by discussing the matter here.

ballinadog

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Sorry but in my view your responses are not adequate and are to be frank disingenuous and reflect poorly on your judegment. Either way as it seems the obstruction has now been cleared there is little to be gained by discussing the matter here.

My next response was to mimic this and just offer to "agree to disagree"... Look, we dont just close lanes/paths/cycletracks off the cuff, we have to submit TM plans which are often approved/rejected/amended. This is not a green field site. We have to do our best to accommodate everybody. Sometimes this is not to everybody's liking but as you said the obstruction is now cleared and hopefully we will be gone off site very shortly!