The new trafic mess on the Quay.

O Riain

I was on a main road in LONDON yesterday and it was rammed. No space for an ambulance to get past even if people pulled over.

Seems its not unique to the quays of Waterford City...

wellboytoo

hardybuck wrote: »

You seem very invested in this project if you don't mind me saying?

Nothing whatever to do with it, just a citizen who had to watch this thread for two years, reading bull from people who know nothing of engineering ,planning, traffic management, etc whinging for Ireland, about how it would never work, look awful, kill people etc.

So you could say I'm rubbing it in, and waiting for one of them to come on and try justify their criticism or admit they're just the usual Waterford big mouthed knockers.

7upfree

wellboytoo wrote: »

Nothing whatever to do with it, just a citizen who had to watch this thread for two years, reading bull from people who know nothing of engineering ,planning, traffic management, etc whinging for Ireland, about how it would never work, look awfully, kill people etc.

So you could say I'm rubbing it in, and waiting g for one of them to come on and try justify their criticism or admit they're just the usual Waterford big mouthed knockers.

As opposed to the "engineers" who seem to think they know what's best for the City? EMTs have posted their concerns here and on other social media.

But sure what would an ambulance driver know......... :rolleyes:


The project is appalling, badly designed, with a minority - incredibly - cheerleading it. Some of whom resort to personal insults when they start throwing their toys out of the pram when people don't agree with them.

wellboytoo

7upfree wrote: »

As opposed to the "engineers" who seem to think they know what's best for the City? EMTs have posted their concerns here and on other social media.

But sure what would an ambulance driver know......... :rolleyes:


The project is appalling, badly designed, with a minority - incredibly - cheerleading it. Some of whom resort to personal insults when they start throwing their toys out of the pram when people don't agree with them.

I rest my case.

hardybuck

wellboytoo wrote: »

Nothing whatever to do with it, just a citizen who had to watch this thread for two years, reading bull from people who know nothing of engineering ,planning, traffic management, etc whinging for Ireland, about how it would never work, look awfully, kill people etc.

So you could say I'm rubbing it in, and waiting g for one of them to come on and try justify their criticism or admit they're just the usual Waterford big mouthed knockers.

As a citizen who only passes through every few weeks, I haven't enjoyed the experience thus far, although I reiterate my comment that I'll wait until it's finished until I make judgement.

Whatever about the final result, it does appear to be taking a inordinate amount of time to complete.

7upfree

wellboytoo wrote: »

I rest my case.

As you always do. What actually certifies you to give your stamp of approval to this madness - then berate people who disagree with you?

wellboytoo

7upfree wrote: »

As you always do. What actually certifies you to give your stamp of approval to this madness - then berate people who disagree with you?

Thirty years of working in construction from planning through to Turn key hand over gives me a little knowledge, but that's not my point, I can read plan's, this looked good on paper from day one, well thought out and joined up thinking with the adjoining streets catered for.
The construction was a world class clusterf*ck from start to finish , I will grant that any day.
It was a case of " kileys law " Murphy was an effing optimist, anything that could go wrong did go wrong.
I was out late last night as well so maybe a bit crabby with this mornings post, grumpy old man syndrome with hangover.
Mea Culpa if I offended .

Sully

wellboytoo wrote: »

Thirty years of working in construction from planning through to Turn key hand over gives me a little knowledge, but that's not my point I can read plan's, this looked good on paper from day one, well thought out and joined up thinking with the adjoining streets catered for.
The construction was a world class clusterf*ck from start to finish , I will grant that any day.
It was a case of " kileys law " murphy was an effing optimist anything that could go wrong did go wrong.
I was out late last night as well so maybe a bit crabby with this mornings post, grumpy old man syndrome with hangover.
Mea Culpa if I offended .

Burn.

Chiparus

7upfree wrote: »

As opposed to the "engineers" who seem to think they know what's best for the City? EMTs have posted their concerns here and on other social media.

But sure what would an ambulance driver know......... :rolleyes:

Interesting, I wonder how many peoples lives have been lost due to the delays on the quays?
I would guess none.

I know several people were killed on the quays over the years from being hit while crossing the road.

deise_boi

Chiparus wrote: »

Interesting, I wonder how many peoples lives have been lost due to the delays on the quays?
I would guess none.

I know several people were killed on the quays over the years from being hit while crossing the road.

What does it matter if it never happened? The fact is that any delay to an ambulance getting to or from an accident due to avoidable traffic congestion is unacceptable. If the new layout can be shown to have an impact on response times then that's quite a serious concern. Obviously I've no idea if it does or not, I'm just highlighting the point.

7upfree

deise_boi wrote: »

What does it matter if it never happened? The fact is that any delay to an ambulance getting to or from an accident due to avoidable traffic congestion is unacceptable. If the new layout can be shown to have an impact on response times then that's quite a serious concern. Obviously I've no idea if it does or not, I'm just highlighting the point.

And therein lies the problem. Life should be made ESIER for the emergency services. Not harder.

robtri

is the problem with the new layout from an emergency vehicle point of view... a design problem or is it that a lot of people in waterford have no concept of parking correctly on the quays....

looking at the layout, if it is used correctly there should be adequete room for an emergency vehicle to pass if people actually used the quays as they where laid out to be used...

deise_boi

Would imagine it's a bit of both. But yeah certainly there are far too many idiots who double park on the quay just to pop into centra or to an atm or whatever else. A better way to deal with that is definitely needed.

Chiparus

More people died from the madness that was the quays, than have ever injured from a perceived delay for emergency vehicles.

Over the years there were several deaths of pedestrians hit by HGVs and busses, the last on three years ago.

wellboytoo

7upfree wrote: »

As you always do. What actually certifies you to give your stamp of approval to this madness - then berate people who disagree with you?

Could I ask the same question of you?

obezyana

I found no issues on the quay yesterday. I got from Manor street to the bridge in the same time as i used to before when the quay was untouched. Maybe just maybe it wont be as bad as what some people think. I think everyone is of the same opinion it is taking way too long. So when is the completion date set for?

Regarding the bridge, that is not to bad anymore with the new lane for people turning right although could they of lengthened the lane to accommodate another car????? Now if they put something nicer (boardwalk/cafes etc) on the quay car parks then the City would look alot better and the works would be all forgiven

wmpdd3

Yes the filter lane for kilbarry has worked brilliantly.

mire

Unfortunately, we cannot design every street on the basis of ambulance speeds. Ambulances have to navigate big roads, little streets, pedetrian spaces, public spaces. If we designed everything on the basis of emergency vehicles, we'd have no pedestrianisation. We'd have way more accidents though because we'd simply speed up ALL traffic.

I saw the works on the quay and it's not finished, but one can see what's being attempted. It's retrofitting of a 1970's style dual carriageway corridor into an urban streetscape and quayside environment. The roundabouts serve to force traffic to slow down and behave; the planted median is designed to urbanise and soften the environment; enhance the crossing opportunities and basically bring the city closer to the waterfront; the narrower carriageways slow traffic down. All of this is sensible design, sensible planning, sensible engineering. No big deal really.

This is basic straightforward re-design in favour of the city and reducing the impact and dominanace of vehicular traffic. it's a no-brainer, and should have been done 20 years ago. This is not experimental or radical; it's been done in cities everywhere for a long time. It's essentially reclaiming streets for the city. These things are notoriously messy, are invariably delayed and often badly managed. But I'm looking forward to seeing the final product and in a year, we'll wonder what all the fuss was about...

Road-Hog

mire wrote: »

Unfortunately, we cannot design every street on the basis of ambulance speeds. Ambulances have to navigate big roads, little streets, pedetrian spaces, public spaces. If we designed everything on the basis of emergency vehicles, we'd have no pedestrianisation. We'd have way more accidents though because we'd simply speed up ALL traffic.


I saw the works on the quay and it's not finished, but one can see what's being attempted. It's retrofitting of a 1970's style dual carriageway corridor into an urban streetscape and quayside environment. The roundabouts serve to force traffic to slow down and behave; the planted median is designed to urbanise and soften the environment; enhance the crossing opportunities and basically bring the city closer to the waterfront; the narrower carriageways slow traffic down. All of this is sensible design, sensible planning, sensible engineering. No big deal really.

This is basic straightforward re-design in favour of the city and reducing the impact and dominanace of vehicular traffic. it's a no-brainer, and should have been done 20 years ago. This is not experimental or radical; it's been done in cities everywhere for a long time. It's essentially reclaiming streets for the city. These things are notoriously messy, are invariably delayed and often badly managed. But I'm looking forward to seeing the final product and in a year, we'll wonder what all the fuss was about...[/quote

Very well written piece

7upfree

wellboytoo wrote: »

Could I ask the same question of you?

Merely commenting as a motorist who uses the road daily. From experience. Like many other critics pif this charade. On another note of lunacy, a new set of lights are waiting to be swathed on at the RSC. Just imagine what it will do to traffic.

Absolutely mental decision.

kayaksurfbum

7upfree wrote: »

a new set of lights are waiting to be swathed on at the RSC. Just imagine what it will do to traffic.

Absolutely mental decision.

What are you talking about, your just mad to give out about something, anything, everything. Go listen to Joe Duffy show podcasts.

wellboytoo

7upfree wrote: »

Merely commenting as a motorist who uses the road daily. From experience. Like many other critics pif this charade.

Oh right Ted, I get you now, you can pontificate on any and all subjects with complete authority but the rest of us have to have an in depth knowledge of the subject to voice an opinion.
Look up dichotomy.

Squidvicious

mire wrote: »

Unfortunately, we cannot design every street on the basis of ambulance speeds. Ambulances have to navigate big roads, little streets, pedetrian spaces, public spaces. If we designed everything on the basis of emergency vehicles, we'd have no pedestrianisation. We'd have way more accidents though because we'd simply speed up ALL traffic.

I saw the works on the quay and it's not finished, but one can see what's being attempted. It's retrofitting of a 1970's style dual carriageway corridor into an urban streetscape and quayside environment. The roundabouts serve to force traffic to slow down and behave; the planted median is designed to urbanise and soften the environment; enhance the crossing opportunities and basically bring the city closer to the waterfront; the narrower carriageways slow traffic down. All of this is sensible design, sensible planning, sensible engineering. No big deal really.

This is basic straightforward re-design in favour of the city and reducing the impact and dominanace of vehicular traffic. it's a no-brainer, and should have been done 20 years ago. This is not experimental or radical; it's been done in cities everywhere for a long time. It's essentially reclaiming streets for the city. These things are notoriously messy, are invariably delayed and often badly managed. But I'm looking forward to seeing the final product and in a year, we'll wonder what all the fuss was about...

As somebody else said, a well-written piece. I don't think it's fair to call the changes a no-brainer, though. If you drove down the Quay to work every morning, you wouldn't call it that. There is a question as to the degree to which the changes slow down traffic and the degree to which the Quay can cope with existing and future traffic loads. A dual carriageway has been reduced to a single lane in either direction. Obviously, this reduces the ability of the street to carry traffic. While some posters have said that they have driven along the Quay at certain times with little delay, this is not always the case. It is certainly considerably slower than before at peak times and traffic also becomes jammed on the Ferrybank(and to a lesser extent Sallypark) side because sometimes the Quay is not clear to allow Bridge traffic to exit the Bridge. Similar delays occur to traffic exiting Lombard Street at the other end. What happens if traffic volumes increase by 10%? Did the Council carry out any proper traffic analyses?

The problem with traffic is that traffic jams can grow exponentially. A junction, for example, may be able to carry 1000 vehicles per hour with no delay. At 1200 vehicles, a delay of 5 minutes could result. However, after that, the junction could become a pinch point with delays growing exponentially even with relatively small further traffic volumes. At certain times, the Quay is near choking point and it has little or no capacity to absorb any more traffic. And we can't all use public transport or the by-pass.

I accept that the sentiment behind the changes was good. However, it's fair to ask whether the inconvenience caused to motorists is justified, particularly when the decisions are, AFIK, entirely taken by unelected officials. I must admit that the delays haven't been as bad as I feared. I still think it's too early to judge whether we can say that it's "no problem". A small increase in traffic could lead to serious difficulties. Or maybe I'm just a pessimist:)?

7upfree

wellboytoo wrote: »

Oh right Ted, I get you now, you can pontificate on any and all subjects with complete authority but the rest of us have to have an in depth knowledge of the subject to voice an opinion.
Look up dichotomy.

Nope, commenting (as is my right) as a road user. And in fairness, you're in no position to lecture anyone about "pontificating".....:rolleyes:

7upfree

kayaksurfbum wrote: »

What are you talking about, your just mad to give out about something, anything, everything. Go listen to Joe Duffy show podcasts.

Lol! Censorship now? Another decision which will impact on the hard-pressed motorist. Again. But there will always be someone to defend idiocy I suppose.

wellboytoo

7upfree wrote: »

Nope, commenting (as is my right) as a road user. And in fairness, you're in no position to lecture anyone about "pontificating".....:rolleyes:

How's the self assertiveness course going 7upfree?
Happy Christmas

fricatus

Squidvicious wrote: »

A dual carriageway has been reduced to a single lane in either direction. Obviously, this reduces the ability of the street to carry traffic.

Only minimally. Any traffic engineer will tell you that the carrying capacity of a road is influenced far more by the junctions on it than the road itself (up to a point). Measures such as a "long green" at Rice Bridge in the evenings can easily compensate.

Squidvicious wrote: »

And we can't all use public transport or the by-pass.

That's fair enough, but an awful lot of people sitting alongside you in the traffic can, and to a certain extent, that's the goal. There are two difficulties with what they're trying though:
- the public transport (especially coming in from north of the river) is sh1te or non-existent,
- the toll to use the Suir Bridge is at a level where people will put up with an awful lot of congestion before they'll use the bypass. Ironically enough they'd probably save that in petrol/diesel, but there's really no way of proving that (unless one of the newspapers, radio stations or WIT want to do some sort of controlled test - even then, there are so many variables at play).

What would really work well is a shadow toll, where the users of the bridge don't pay, but the government pays the toll operator based on traffic numbers. That depends on a cash-strapped government being willing to stump up the cash to improve Waterford's congestion problem - I can't see that happening in a month of Sundays!

mire

Squidvicious wrote: »

As somebody else said, a well-written piece. I don't think it's fair to call the changes a no-brainer, though. If you drove down the Quay to work every morning, you wouldn't call it that. There is a question as to the degree to which the changes slow down traffic and the degree to which the Quay can cope with existing and future traffic loads. A dual carriageway has been reduced to a single lane in either direction. Obviously, this reduces the ability of the street to carry traffic. While some posters have said that they have driven along the Quay at certain times with little delay, this is not always the case. It is certainly considerably slower than before at peak times and traffic also becomes jammed on the Ferrybank(and to a lesser extent Sallypark) side because sometimes the Quay is not clear to allow Bridge traffic to exit the Bridge. Similar delays occur to traffic exiting Lombard Street at the other end. What happens if traffic volumes increase by 10%? Did the Council carry out any proper traffic analyses?

The problem with traffic is that traffic jams can grow exponentially. A junction, for example, may be able to carry 1000 vehicles per hour with no delay. At 1200 vehicles, a delay of 5 minutes could result. However, after that, the junction could become a pinch point with delays growing exponentially even with relatively small further traffic volumes. At certain times, the Quay is near choking point and it has little or no capacity to absorb any more traffic. And we can't all use public transport or the by-pass.

I accept that the sentiment behind the changes was good. However, it's fair to ask whether the inconvenience caused to motorists is justified, particularly when the decisions are, AFIK, entirely taken by unelected officials. I must admit that the delays haven't been as bad as I feared. I still think it's too early to judge whether we can say that it's "no problem". A small increase in traffic could lead to serious difficulties. Or maybe I'm just a pessimist:)?

Good points here. The nub of this is actually a philosophical one. You said that "A dual carriageway has been reduced to a single lane in either direction. Obviously, this reduces the ability of the street to carry traffic." Exactly! This reflects a huge change in how we view our city centres. Quite rightly, we have finally come around to the idea that it's detrimental to urban life, to commerce, to the environment, to public safety, to our built heritage, to urban design to allow city centres accommodate dual carriageways. Dual carriageways have no place in city centres. Those days are long gone and have been gone in many cities since the 1960's. We're just catching up to the idea that we should promote and encourage pedestrian movement, streetscape improvements, landscaping, urban activity and not see city centre streets as 'pipes for carrying cars'. If there is congestion on the quay it will simply adapt. No city solves problems by building more and more traffic capacity in the centre. In fact, you do the opposite; you deliberately reduce the vehicular capacity of your best streets - i.e. Waterford's quaysides - possibly the most attractive historic quayscape in Ireland, and at the same time, enhance its attarctiveness to pedestrians, walkers, as a public space, as a destination. So yes, to answer your question, is it worth the inconvenience to motorists - yes it is. Their 'right' to drive quickly through the city centre is secondary to the rights of the city to prosper and improve.

We need to ask ourselves - what do we want the quay [and our city centre] to be? A place that carries cars at high speeds and high volumes through and away from the city centre? Or an attractive and busy urban space that accommodates the city as well as traffic? The reason I say this is a no brainer is that no it's not too early to judge this really...if this scheme is to be judged ultimately, it should be based on revitalisation and regenerative criteria, not whether loads of cars can get through quickly. If congestion occurs, so be it. Congestion is simply the by product of economic activity and evidence of a demand for access. A lack of congestion usually indicates urban decline [there's no traffic in Detroit, and New York is permanently congested - which is the urban failure and which reflects urban sucess?]. When we can drive up Waterford's quays in 2 minutes in peak time, the city will be dead or dying. When it takes 15 minutes and the quay is chocabloc because of those pesky money spending shoppers, tourists, students & businesses people, I'll happily grab a stool in Jordan's, raise a glass and look out over the glorious quay and riverside, and know that someone made the right decision.

Deise Vu

It would be an awful lot easier to appreciate that there might actually be a greater plan at play here if tomorrow wasn't the third anniversary of the opening post on this thread. (The NEW traffic mess on the Quay!!!). Three years and no end in sight. How are we supposed to believe in esoteric future benefits when the simple construction of a straight forward project is a balls up from start to finish?

Squidvicious

mire wrote: »

Good points here. The nub of this is actually a philosophical one. You said that "A dual carriageway has been reduced to a single lane in either direction. Obviously, this reduces the ability of the street to carry traffic." Exactly! This reflects a huge change in how we view our city centres. Quite rightly, we have finally come around to the idea that it's detrimental to urban life, to commerce, to the environment, to public safety, to our built heritage, to urban design to allow city centres accommodate dual carriageways. Dual carriageways have no place in city centres. Those days are long gone and have been gone in many cities since the 1960's. We're just catching up to the idea that we should promote and encourage pedestrian movement, streetscape improvements, landscaping, urban activity and not see city centre streets as 'pipes for carrying cars'. If there is congestion on the quay it will simply adapt. No city solves problems by building more and more traffic capacity in the centre. In fact, you do the opposite; you deliberately reduce the vehicular capacity of your best streets - i.e. Waterford's quaysides - possibly the most attractive historic quayscape in Ireland, and at the same time, enhance its attarctiveness to pedestrians, walkers, as a public space, as a destination. So yes, to answer your question, is it worth the inconvenience to motorists - yes it is. Their 'right' to drive quickly through the city centre is secondary to the rights of the city to prosper and improve.

We need to ask ourselves - what do we want the quay [and our city centre] to be? A place that carries cars at high speeds and high volumes through and away from the city centre? Or an attractive and busy urban space that accommodates the city as well as traffic? The reason I say this is a no brainer is that no it's not too early to judge this really...if this scheme is to be judged ultimately, it should be based on revitalisation and regenerative criteria, not whether loads of cars can get through quickly. If congestion occurs, so be it. Congestion is simply the by product of economic activity and evidence of a demand for access. A lack of congestion usually indicates urban decline [there's no traffic in Detroit, and New York is permanently congested - which is the urban failure and which reflects urban sucess?]. When we can drive up Waterford's quays in 2 minutes in peak time, the city will be dead or dying. When it takes 15 minutes and the quay is chocabloc because of those pesky money spending shoppers, tourists, students & businesses people, I'll happily grab a stool in Jordan's, raise a glass and look out over the glorious quay and riverside, and know that someone made the right decision.

Philosophical question it may be but I'll level with you - I'm an impatient bugger and I hate being stuck in traffic jams:D.

Joking aside, I accept that that's not a reason in itself to blackball the entire scheme. I presume that the Council is trying to create in Waterford what many of us have seen in many continental towns and cities. That's certainly an appealing vision, but what works in one city may not work in another. It's one thing to discourage cars from, say, an Italian town centre with high density housing and decent public transport. The problem is that we have built a very car dependant little nation here. Most of us need cars to go shopping - or else we think we need them and won't be convinced otherwise. I accept that congestion would be a price worth paying for revitalisation but there's a risk of the opposite. Many shoppers will choose the relative lack of traffic congestion in other centres or out of town shopping malls.

I do also think that Waterford has a little less scope to divert traffic away from the centre and the Quay in particular than many cities/towns. We only have one central bridge so a huge percentage of traffic must travel along the Quay or Bridge Street - the second bridge is a very long detour for a lot of traffic and not practical for most of us(but an option, I accept, if the Quay becomes congested).

To use the cliché, only time will tell who's right. So I'll keep an eye out for you in Jordan's in a few years time to either say to you "you were right" or "I told you so". In the meantime, keep an eye for a driver in a jam on the Quay with blood pressure visibly rising - that'll probably be me:)