Killaloe bypass, Shannon crossing & R494 Birdhill-Killaloe

I’m never a fan of radical changes just because there’s new infrastructure nearby. Can be a major inconvenience for local traffic and often undos the benefits of the new

Literal rush hour traffic will be far less as the ultimate destination/origin is likely Limerick or Nenagh, so it will be quicker and more convenient to use the new bridge as it's on the way for anyone on the Clare side. The 300m long queue trying to get from the Ballina side to the Killaloe side of an evening coming home from work will disappear completely as all of it will just take the new bridge as it will be a shortcut

The new bridge is really out of the way and inconvenient for the school run from the point of view of both sides unless you live towards the south of each village anyway.

The knee-jerk urge to pedestrianise the old bridge by people who don't live locally is seriously inconsiderate and ill considered.

I'm willing to bet that the "people who live there", as in actually there, not ten miles away, are fairly sick of the school-run traffic too.

So what if it's a longer drive: it's one without a bottleneck, so the travel time will be close enough to what it was.

Making small rural towns and villages less horrible to live in means people are a bit more likely to live there, and that helps to keep services an amenities open.

Surely a trial could be done, take baselines of the situation after the bridge opens, then pedestrianise the old bridge for two week and measure the effects. You would also have to remeasure the situation with the old bridge reopened to traffic again as after using the new bridge some people may continue to use it, reluctance to change may have otherwise not allowed them to experience the benefits of changing their route.

It could be the case that many would switch to using the new bridge even if the old bridge remained an option, while others might switch to walking/cycling across a pedestrianised old bridge, meaning relatively few are put out by pedestrianising the old bridge (although I'd still expect them to make a lot of noise, regardless of their numbers).

Pedestrianisation of the bridge is not something that would happen overnight in any case, so there will be plenty of time for consultation and assessing the impacts. It's only one part of a comprehensive mobility management plan for the towns.

Lol.

The bridge used to have two lanes of traffic before the lights were put in and kids and pedestrians managed to cross safely as well since drivers were obliging and accommodating. The one problem, hence the need for this new Bridge, was trucks, particularly large articulated ones, some of which couldn't manage the right angle tun onto the bridge on the Clare side, without hitting the side wall of the bridge and knocking a hole in it.

I doubt you will be able to tell from this photo why in the decade my kids were crossing this bridge twice a day, I never worried for their safety for a second, but others might. They could easily have made the pedestrian strip wider and arguably should have.

Google street view - everyone's an expert.

Don't worry, I am sure you will get your wish and local opinions will be overridden by some eco-warrior know-all public servant with the power to pull the right levers.

I must be the only local (yes I live in Ballina itself) that wants the old bridge pedestrianized.

At the moment, if i want to come from say the Portroe road side, go to Killaloe or even Birdhill, I'm almost guaranteed to be stuck in traffic because of the mini roundabout outside the wooden spoon for at least 5-10 minutes. If the old bridge is kept open, their will still be a bottle neck here and (IMO) make the new bridge almost useless for me.

It obvious from the photo if the tru is and heavy vehicles are removed that the pedestrians/cycling lane can be widened to a out twice it's width and bollards I stalled. This would allow a single lane of traffic with lights

Is the plan to wait at least to see the new bridge and how it affects traffic or try and have only one bridge at any one time?

Do/will they have the necessary paperwork in place? I'm fairly sure it's not just a case of placing a barrier on the bridge. Just think of the trouble to change a street name.

They'll need to make provision for access by emergency vehicles too.

People power ... Vehemently opposed.… Not a done deal

"Clare Fianna Fáil TD Cathal Crowe said that following his meetings with local business people he felt, that for now at least, the old and new bridge remain open to traffic for a number of months to enable an informed decision to be made."

https://www.nenaghguardian.ie/2025/01/11/traders-in-ballina-killaloe-oppose-plan-to-pedestrianise-old-bridge-over-river-shannon/

It's a good thing we dumb natives have got colonial masters like yourself to tell us whats best for us.

Saw two of these today.

Other residents have posted the opposing view to you without needing to label people.

There's an easy compromise here: treat the bridge and approaches as a completely shared space. Take away the traffic lights, pave the whole thing as a footway/cycleway. That means the entirety becomes usable to pedestrians and cyclists, and while cars can cross too, they do so with no priority (this is already the position in Irish law, by the way, but lots of drivers forget it). This strategy has worked well in Germany and the Netherlands: when the design of the streetscape gives car drivers no dedicated place to drive, car drivers, not being assholes, slow down and accommodate other people around them.

The picture below shows the sort of thing: note there's no markings to say “this is for cars” or “this is for bikes” or “this is for pedestrians”. People slow down, look around them, and there are far fewer accidents than on streets with traditional car/pedestrian divisions.

TBH if the new bridge accommodates all the through traffic and the old bridge is only for local use, then why not just do whatever the local residents want?

Personally (as someone who's only there every couple of months), I like the idea of pedestrianising it but Killaloe village has already been hollowed out pretty badly so if keeping it open to cars helps local trade then I'd be all for that.

If there are no trucks, you could easily separate out a footpath and a cycle path with bollards and still have enough width for a car to pass.

Well yeah, if you want to stick to the urban planning requirements, then it's not going to work.

Like I said, I don't care from a personal perspective, but the value of a two-way cycle lane going across the bridge is somewhat questionable when there are no cycle lanes of any description on either side of the bridge.

Widen the existing footpath area by about 0.5m, narrow the car lane, ban HGVs, and keep the shuttle traffic lights

That's pretty much what I would do. It's a decent compromise IMO.

The bridge used to accommodate 2 lanes of opposing traffic and had no lights. And what is that nonsense with your second last option requiring cyclists use the new bridge? If cars have a lane available, then so do cyclists. Surely you meant one way in the sense that it is alternating one way controlled by lights currently. Truly one way would just be silly.

I guess it doesn't rain where you are as much as it does here, or you'd know why cars are often the preferred option.

Still waiting to meet an actual villager in person that wants old bridge car free.

There arent flocks of cyclists crossing that bridge this aint amsterdam. And the walkers look pretty content with the system as is. I dont see the need to change anything with old bridge. (Except the trucks ofc)

If new bridge becomes better option the flow will naturally go there.

I don't think it is accurate to say that traffic will "naturally" go to the new bridge. Many people will continue to use the old bridge out of habit and won't automatically switch to the new bridge even if it would be faster (many don't believe that driving further can actually be faster until they experience it).

Walkers may look pretty content with the system as is but they also know that there is no alternative currently. And it shouldn't come as a surprise that people are reluctant to cycle at present.

There's a reason it went to one way traffic years ago, and I do remember what it was like trying to walk across the bridge when traffic was busy , it's not a particularly wide bridge , but there's no reason that the bridge couldn't stay as it is traffic light controlled,no hgvs or tractors , the car lane could be made slightly narrower , and or speed restricted , it's only going to be used by local cars - and anyone who thinks it's to slow or too many pedestrians, or whatever will use the new bridge .

No one doesn't cycle around here because the bridge has traffic on it - what utter nonsense.

What you don't understand, not being local is that there are two types of traffic - local and non-local, with the latter comprising commuting traffic, commercial traffic and through traffic. The entirety of this class of traffic will use the new bridge because it will be easier and quicker. With that load taken off the old bridge, it will absolutely be much, much quieter for local traffic.

If people think local traffic would find it quicker and more convenient to use the new bridge, then that is what they will do and there will be hardly any traffic using the old bridge at all, if that notion is correct. People are not bloody minded as a rule. I will be happy to use the new bridge if I find it quicker and more convenient - I'm not someone who makes a rod for their own back unnecessarily.

In order to find out though, local people deserve having both options available.

If I and others cease using the old bridge because we find it advantageous, then at some point in the future we would support full closure of the old bridge to traffic and the outcome all these non-locals have such a weird hard-on for forcing on locals will eventuate anyway.

The decision should be up to locals, not self appointed experts living elsewhere, even if you think the local need to be told because they are banjo playing hillbillies who don't know what's best for them.

Another point that should be made in support of keeping the old bridge open as is, is that closing it simply moves all the traffic onto another single route. So there is another single point of failure. Keeping both bridges open will ensure that the traffic load is spread out over the 2 bridges, through and heavy traffic using the new bridge and local traffic using the old bridge.

Some people will find the new bridge quicker and will just take that further reducing the traffic load on the old bridge.

The decision should be up to locals, not self appointed experts living elsewhere, even if you think the local need to be told because they are banjo playing hillbillies who don't know what's best for them.

Now, I know I've only been living in Killaloe for about a decade, so I'm still a good century or two away from legally being allowed to claim the title of "local", but as a resident blow-in I'm personally all for the pedestrianisation of the bridge, so not everyone in town is against it… 😝