Killaloe bypass, Shannon crossing & R494 Birdhill-Killaloe

At least you agree about the footpath.

And given your strong opinions on this, I guess you participated in the public consultations. What was the reply you got?

Back to two lanes with no trucks. The good olde days. I admit i run the red light every opportunity like the old days when im first or second behind the stopped red light.

As a Killaloe resident I made a submission to the Town Enhancement and Mobility Plan supporting the opening of the old bridge to people walking and cycling once the new bridge is opened to cars. 

Keeping vehicles on the old bridge after spending all that money on the new one would be ridiculous. There was a lot of debate when the plan for the twin towns was launched, and many people made submissions. It’s time to get on with this plan as agreed by both councils. Those who can and want to drive over the river will still be able to do so. 

The plan as it stands is to close the old bridge the day the new one opens.

I think the pen pushers would almost need the new bridge open before doing their bit (they'd hate to have to undo it and then redo it). It wouldn't surprise me that there would be a few weeks with both bridges open and what harm would that be.

That shouldn't be a surprise and is part of going through the motions for implementing change. A lot of people are naturally resistant to change, coupled with a general attitude that no good can come from restricting cars.

Like I posted last week, the first step should be looking for a trial pedestrianisation of the bridge. Collect data before, during and after that trial. I'm sure that the data will support permanent pedestrianisation, dispelling horror stories about longer journey times, etc. Also, many people will need a push to switch to using the new bridge instead of following their long established routine, after experiences from that trial some won't go back to that routine.

Making it an "us v them" situation will only see people becoming more entrenched. A more measured approach is needed to get changes like this over the line. It's a long term game, but one which has to be played.

It really is a bit silly when the new bridge is just 1km downstream; it's not like they're expecting people to drive down to O'Briensbridge or something. It'd add five minutes to a trip at most, and you could easily spend almost that long (or longer) waiting at the light on the old bridge now. And the old bridge will still be open, just for pedestrian and cycle traffic, and it will be quite a bit more inviting for those road users. If anything, the towns will be better connected than they are today, for those on foot; walking across the bridge now is not really a pleasant experience, trying to navigate between the nasty piles of muck that always cover half the narrow "path" and the traffic whizzing by inches from you on the other side, and god help you if you meet an oncoming buggy at the wrong time. I imagine people would be a fair bit more inclined to cross on foot if the bridge was pedestrianised, and cyclists would have a much easier time of it as well (and wouldn't have to either wait at the light or, if they're that sort, try to salmon against the current traffic flow or squeeze pedestrians off the path and cause a mess). Seems a reasonable enough trade-off for those who need or want to drive across the river spending a few extra minutes at most doing so.

Incomplete poster - Keep our bridge open to cars

Keep our communities connected by cars

What a moronic poster

The bridge is a little less than 5m wide. A car lane is 2.75m minimum (if banning trucks). A two-way cycle lane is 2.5m. A footpath is 1.8m minimum. A shared space with pedestrians and cyclists is 3m minimum. All of those minimum dimensions are also poor quality facilities that will create a lot of conflict from trying to squeeze too many people into too small a space.

A shared space (3m) plus a small car lane (2.75m) is wider than the bridge by about a metre.

The bridge section that is currently a shuttle for cars is about 200m long. There's no way to manage a shuttle that long without traffic lights as it's hard to see the other end in all conditions to know if the bridge is clear of oncoming traffic.

Options for the existing bridge in town are (without substantial changes to the existing bridge structure are):

• Do nothing
• Widen the existing footpath area by about 0.5m, narrow the car lane, ban HGVs, and keep the shuttle traffic lights
• Widen the existing footpath area and maybe make the bridge one way for car traffic (including banning HGVs). This would be really bad for cyclists who now have to go the long way around
• Make the bridge pedestrian and cyclists only.

so if keeping it open to cars helps local trade then I'd be all for that.

And that's a big if.

With regard to placing bollards to define lanes for different users it's important to retain access for emergency vehicles.

In order to allow for emergencies either on the bridge or under it on the water access for standard HSE ambulances, class b fire tenders and Coastguard SUVs is essential.

Rains occasionally but I car(e) not……

My parents live in Ballina. Old bridge should be kept as is, it will be naturally quieter if all through traffic is taking the new bridge. The old bridge will become a local traffic route and ensure that HGVs and busses are banned from using it it will be much quieter and easier for everyone to cross.