Killiney Towers Roundabout is being made narrower!

reprazant · 12-11-2012 4:45pm

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

On a separate note, I find it amazing how some of the (anti-motorist) posters on this thread get into such denial and become defensive whenever someone posts about an accident or regular tailbacks. This is probably because they are too afraid to admit that their cowardly attitude towards the road is becoming a nuisance to the broader traveling public.

I presume you are referring to cyclists here with this but I am confused as to what you mean by 'cowardly attitude'? Could you expand on that please?

monument · 12-11-2012 5:04pm

reprazant wrote: »

I presume you are referring to cyclists here with this but I am confused as to what you mean by 'cowardly attitude'? Could you expand on that please?

He said before that he wants people -- on foot and on bicycles -- to man up and get out of the way of cars.

patrickbrophy18 · 12-11-2012 6:56pm

reprazant wrote: »

I presume you are referring to cyclists here with this but I am confused as to what you mean by 'cowardly attitude'? Could you expand on that please?

I am talking about the people who thought the roundabout was "unsafe:rolleyes:" in it's previous layout. These are the same people who are defending the roundabout in it's current form. I suspect that a large number are either cyclists who frequently brake red lights and go against the flow of traffic OR pedestrians who cross the road without looking left or right. The remainder obviously think the road network is a playground for them to do as they please. Either-way, they don't want to admit that they are a nuisance.

A lot of them are reveling at the fact that tailbacks are occurring. By the way monument, these tailbacks were occurring long before the diversions took place and since the roundabout was re-configured. With the old layout, this wasn't a problem. As someone who lives just around the corner from it, I would know a hell of a lot more about it than you do. I used to do long walks for miles via the roundabout and had no problem with it in its previous form. In fact, I feel more exposed with the pathetic small capsule shaped medians.

As for monument's comment about "facing facts". The fact is that the new design caters for road users who lack basic observation skills or think the road network owes them top priority.

monument · 12-11-2012 7:58pm

The report on the roundabout does not show anything other than minor crashes.

Nobody seems to be able to link to media reports about anything more than minor crashes. The idea that somebody has been killed on the roundabout but this has gone unreported is strange given the amount of interist in the roundabout.

But in saying that I'll still do my best to confirm events if people come forward with dates and incident type.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I am talking about the people who thought the roundabout was "unsafe:rolleyes:" in it's previous layout. These are the same people who are defending the roundabout in it's current form. I suspect that a large number are either cyclists who frequently brake red lights and go against the flow of traffic OR pedestrians who cross the road without looking left or right. The remainder obviously think the road network is a playground for them to do as they please. Either-way, they don't want to admit that they are a nuisance

You suspect?

I know you're not able to deal with facts and to distract from this you're attacking people and try to label everybody with a different view a lawbreaker.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

By the way monument, these tailbacks were occurring long before the diversions took place and since the roundabout was re-configured.

The point is you were putting photos up of the roundabout while the diversions were in place and not mentioning the diversions until prompted.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

With the old layout, this wasn't a problem. As someone who lives just around the corner from it, I would know a hell of a lot more about it than you do. I used to do long walks for miles via the roundabout and had no problem with it in its previous form. In fact, I feel more exposed with the pathetic small capsule shaped medians.

It's a matter of perspective if it was or was not a problem.

You're on record as saying motorists in cars should have top priority over everybody else, so you'd hardly think the old design was bad.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

As for monument's comment about "facing facts". The fact is that the new design caters for road users who lack basic observation skills or think the road network owes them top priority.

That's your main problem -- you don't like or even hate seeing cyclists get prorirty.

It again too shows how you're unable to deal with facts -- national and local policy is to give cyclists and people walking greater priority. It's not about owing people anything.

Cookie_Monster · 12-11-2012 8:45pm

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

As for monument's comment about "facing facts". The fact is that the new design caters for road users who lack basic observation skills or think the road network owes them top priority.

that'd be motorists then right? Because the new roundabout is designed for cars at the expense of all other vehicles IMO, turns too tight for big vehicles as noted with buses hitting kerbs etc and the cycling lane is nothing but a death trap.

patrickbrophy18 · 12-11-2012 9:20pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

that'd be motorists then right? Because the new roundabout is designed for cars at the expense of all other vehicles IMO, turns too tight for big vehicles as noted with buses hitting kerbs etc and the cycling lane is nothing but a death trap.

I'm a bit puzzled by this response Cookie_Monster. Just as a matter of interest, how would you have redesigned the roundabout?

Anyway, the approach taken with the Stradbrook Roundabout would have been far more suitable for Killiney Towers IMO if a complete overhaul "was necessary:rolleyes:". However, all it needed was a resurfacing job and not a change in layout.

Alias G · 12-11-2012 10:07pm

Alias G wrote: »

Unfortunately, no infrastructure can account for the actions of plonkers.

I wasn't in a rush to make any judgement. If someone behaves like that behind the wheel then you really have to question their suitability to drive in the first place. No sympathy from me.

Cookie_Monster · 13-11-2012 4:20am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I'm a bit puzzled by this response Cookie_Monster. Just as a matter of interest, how would you have redesigned the roundabout?

I would have repainted the lines and that's it. It was a perfectly fine roundabout that needed nothing done to it apart from removing the defunct red paint and clearly defining the road markings between the two lanes.

patrickbrophy18 · 13-11-2012 3:23pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I would have repainted the lines and that's it. It was a perfectly fine roundabout that needed nothing done to it apart from removing the defunct red paint and clearly defining the road markings between the two lanes.

That's exactly what I think!

Alias G wrote: »

Unfortunately, no infrastructure can account for the actions of plonkers.

Completely agree with this too. What kind of muppet wouldn't be able to see the rubber kerbs?:mad:

I mean, to be fair, they are kind of hard to miss with their yellow and black construction site (or is it crime scene?:D) motif. The familiar purple/dark red paint work between the rubber and concrete is also a dead giveaway. Unlike trucks and buses, cars should have no problem with negotiating the roundabout because of their much smaller size. I'm surprised that the car didn't crash into any of the new sign posts or worse still a cyclist or pedestrian.:eek:

Once again, incidents like this require tougher policing not re-alignment or layout changes. I would have taken this ones number plate and reported her if I was there. Agreeably, I too, am aware that Ireland is riddled with crappy drivers who should be made to resit the test due to their incompetence and potentially fatal behavior.

patrickbrophy18 · 16-11-2012 5:27pm

I have decided to take some of the comments from users such as monument, Seaswimmer, schemingbohemia, Larbre34, markpb and le petit braquet on board. This doesn't mean that I agree with how the roundabout was re-engineered with tight junctions and tailbacks being the end result. Anyway, I decided to check Google Earth to see the former shape of the roundabout in question. I can see how there was a lot of redundant road space prior to the construction of the new layout which did leave cyclists and pedestrians exposed and hence vulnerable. In places, the roundabout was way too wide where pedestrians and cyclists could have been better accommodated and where a full segregated cycle track may have been placed on the outside.

Here is a map showing how I would have altered it:

In the above map, I have again included colour coded areas to better demonstrate where everything could have gone. Anyway, the entry points to some of the roads (above) have been brought forward by up to 6 meters in places (Most notably at the Upper Glenageary Road and Avondale Road junctions). Other significant measures include the redefining of the actual roundabout boundary itself where road space was excessive. The circular carriageway in the above proposal is still 6.5 meters in width which is essentially two lanes wide. However, unlike the previous layout, the width remains consistent instead of having the erratic width gradients were the distance between the kerb and the traffic island was up to a whopping 12 meters.

The colour codes are pretty straight forward:

Dark Grey: Outer curb alignments.
Grey: Junction medians.
Red: Outer cycle track separated by concrete at crucial points. In the above example the cycle track would be raised. The cycle track itself would be roughly 2 to 3 meters in width.
Green: Roundabout island.
Dark Red Line: Outer carriageway boundary.

Please note that this is a work in progress as I am yet to add another colour code for a cobblestone surface (excluding the cycle lanes) which restricts the speed of motorist while on the roundabout.

The entry and exit radii at each arm (in the above map) are still wide. The width of the carriage ways at Barnhill Road and Avondale Road would be kept wide with greenery in place to reserve space for road widening projects much further down the line.

Cookie_Monster · 16-11-2012 11:31pm

The cycle track crossing the entries / exits in such a manner would create conflict, who has right of way, will either user actually stop and respect that?

I think that is even more dangerous for cyclists than the current design

patrickbrophy18 · 17-11-2012 12:16am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The cycle track crossing the entries / exits in such a manner would create conflict, who has right of way, will either user actually stop and respect that?

I think that is even more dangerous for cyclists than the current design

Duly noted CM!:D;)

However, the map I provided today is a work in progress. I am thinking of one of the following three options:

I was thinking that the surface used by motorists could be a cobblestone one which would make it similar to the roundabout in Carrickmines Retail Park. The cycle track would NOT be cobblestone as it would exacerbate the wear and tear of the wheels and it would make use of the cycle track very uncomfortable. Tactile paving would be provided where pedestrians cross.
Zebra crossings at the exits should (in theory) slow down traffic coming off the roundabout giving pedestrians and cyclists more time to cross.
Turn the entire roundabout into a crossroads like that seen in Kill Lane and Mounttown Road. Did you see the starfish junction I designed?:)

The rest is basic observation skills by motorists, pedestrians and cyclists (i.e. making sure the coast is clear before crossing).

Feedback would be much appreciated!:D

Cookie_Monster · 19-11-2012 9:24pm

1. cobblestones are a nightmare to drive on, reducing grip hugely and would be totally unsuitable for cyclists who would otherwise opt to use the road as a quicker, safer route. they also tend to get damaged and torn up quicker by heavy vehicles like buses.
2. In theory, unfortunately theory doesn't account for the average Irish road user and their complete inability to drive properly
3. An alternative to be sure but like the farm or plans for the graduate roundabout I really see no benefit at all in removing roundabouts to replace them with junctions

Larbre34 · 20-11-2012 1:33pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

1. cobblestones are a nightmare to drive on, reducing grip hugely and would be totally unsuitable for cyclists who would otherwise opt to use the road as a quicker, safer route. they also tend to get damaged and torn up quicker by heavy vehicles like buses.
2. In theory, unfortunately theory doesn't account for the average Irish road user and their complete inability to drive properly
3. An alternative to be sure but like the farm or plans for the graduate roundabout I really see no benefit at all in removing roundabouts to replace them with junctions

In short - Letting slower pedestrians have a fair go at crossing the road safely.

Roundabouts offer no priority to those on foot. As the compromise of putting signal crossings close to the junction arms of roundabouts only messes things up completely by having four or five independently operated sets of lights, you might as well replace it with a junction entirely and at least be able to co-ordinate the vehicle and pedestrian movements fully.

nomdeboardie · 20-11-2012 1:41pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

In short - Letting slower pedestrians have a fair go at crossing the road safely.

Roundabouts offer no priority to those on foot. As the compromise of putting signal crossings close to the junction arms of roundabouts only messes things up completely by having four or five independently operated sets of lights, you might as well replace it with a junction entirely and at least be able to co-ordinate the vehicle and pedestrian movements fully.

Yes, this is an issue. For low-foot-traffic roundabouts, would it not be effective to have road traffic yield to pedestrians (zebra crossings)?

Cookie_Monster · 20-11-2012 7:16pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

In short - Letting slower pedestrians have a fair go at crossing the road safely.

Roundabouts offer no priority to those on foot. As the compromise of putting signal crossings close to the junction arms of roundabouts only messes things up completely by having four or five independently operated sets of lights, you might as well replace it with a junction entirely and at least be able to co-ordinate the vehicle and pedestrian movements fully.

Poor reason given that ped lights aren't even properly integrated into light cycles in ireland, just slows everything down. Take monkstown farm now for instance, from normally a 5 to 10 sec wait while moving forward to the roundabout, you now sit there for 30+ waiting on lights + more again if ped lights come on, esp annoying at night when there's no traffic.

Over here in NZ ped lights come on within the main cycle of traffic. so for example if you have a crossroads with roads going N-S and E-W when the lights are green fo N-S traffic they are green fo rpeds to cross the E-W road in the same direction, with turning traffic having to yield to them. Speeds up the whole interchange a lot

patrickbrophy18 · 20-11-2012 10:48pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Over here in NZ ped lights come on within the main cycle of traffic. so for example if you have a crossroads with roads going N-S and E-W when the lights are green fo N-S traffic they are green fo rpeds to cross the E-W road in the same direction, with turning traffic having to yield to them. Speeds up the whole interchange a lot

Sounds like a brilliant idea and it makes a huge amount of sense. I have since had a re-read of the Cycle Network Review and Killiney Towers Roundabout is to be converted into a crossroads or "New Traffic Signal Controlled Junction" as it is phrased in the "Proposed Measures" part of the document. If this is indeed the case, the traffic flow method which applies in New Zealand could be applied to Killiney Towers. Having said that, busier roads such as Barnhill, Avondale and Upper Glenageary Roads would be given more movement opportunities than Killiney and Albert Roads. However, there are five roads converging at Killiney Towers which complicates things quite a bit.

Nevertheless, it would make sense to allow one road at a time to move off which would make it possible for pedestrians and dismounted cyclists to move more freely along the other four stationary junctions. I've always thought that Adelaide and Albert Roads should be turned into a mass one-way system. This is due to the fact that they are perfectly parallel with intermediate connector roads at key points which would make for ideal turn back facilities. The end result would be that Albert Road would only accommodate west bound traffic. This means that if the lights were red at Albert Road and Killiney Towers was a crossroads, this would significantly improve crossing opportunities for pedestrians and dismounted cyclists at this point.

Whilst a mass one-way system could become problematic for residents along affected alignments, it shouldn't take too long to adjust to such an arrangement. All it would require is decisive planning from the house to their destination and vice versa. The broader traveling public would benefit from this including cyclists and pedestrians. Here is how:

Buses could begin to use Albert and Adelaide Roads from the likes of Cherrywood to Dun Laoghaire which means that their width wouldn't be a problem anymore (this would be a long term benefit perhaps 30 years down the road).
Left over slack resulting from the removal of the opposite direction of traffic to each road could be consolidated for the provision of a cycle lane.
Restricting the direction of traffic on a single road simplifies the sequence of traffic lights in that it lowers the permutations or combinations of signals at affected junctions. As such, one green traffic light would accommodating left, onward and right movement of traffic. By a similar token, a simplified sequence of traffic signals would allow a greater amount of time to be allocated to the crossing of pedestrians and dismounted cyclists.
It would also be there in part to relieve traffic from Lower Glenageary Road to enable faster progress on the 45A, 7 and 111 bus routes.

Larbre34 · 21-11-2012 12:08pm

Patrick there, using any excuse to trot out the old mass one-way system which was rejected on here before, he'd rather have the buses going the most efficient way from his point of view than where there is actual passenger demand

I agree that poorly sequenced lights are worse than no lights at all, and that yes the Monkstown Farm roundabout sequence is a nonsense, maybe to do with the unusual layout and 5 approaches, I dont know. However, most signal junctions in Dublin that are equipped with electronic controllers do operate allowing pedestrians to cross while the other roads have a green light, I must have passed through 5 or 6 like that this morning alone.

We don't have 'yield on green' by turning cars to pedestrians in Ireland for the same reason we don't use un-signalised zebra crossings any more, i.e., Irish drivers are appalling at observing discretionary traffic controls, ask any school warden in the morning.

patrickbrophy18 · 21-11-2012 8:54pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

Patrick there, using any excuse to trot out the old mass one-way system which was rejected on here before

As far as I know, you were the only one who rejected the idea of a mass one-way system unless some posts are hidden to yours truly. If a road is not wide enough to comfortable fit bi-directional traffic flow, it shouldn't be two-way. The only exception I would make to this is cul de sacs and neighbourhoods which offer no benefit to the greater public.

Larbre34 wrote: »

He'd rather have the buses going the most efficient way from his point of view than where there is actual passenger demand

I specifically placed a text in bold that it would be a long term (30 year) plan and a small part of there of. Anyway, what is the general problem with a bus taking a more efficient route to it's destination?

Larbre34 wrote: »

I agree that poorly sequenced lights are worse than no lights at all, and that yes the Monkstown Farm roundabout sequence is a nonsense, maybe to do with the unusual layout and 5 approaches, I dont know.

Maybe a bit of tweaking to the Monkstown Farm junction is needed but not that much.

Larbre34 wrote: »

However, most signal junctions in Dublin that are equipped with electronic controllers do operate allowing pedestrians to cross while the other roads have a green light, I must have passed through 5 or 6 like that this morning alone.

There is no reason why an arrangement like this can't be applied to a signal controlled junction which seems to be planned for Killiney Towers as per the document here.

Larbre34 wrote: »

We don't have 'yield on green' by turning cars to pedestrians in Ireland for the same reason we don't use un-signalised zebra crossings any more, i.e.

Of course we don't, "yield on green" would over complicate things. It's either green or red. At least we are agreeing that signalised junctions are more intuitive and fool proof than junctions which are open to all kinds of flaws. The only caution I would make for pedestrians away from traffic lights is to make sure the coast is clear before crossing.

Larbre34 wrote: »

Irish drivers are appalling at observing discretionary traffic controls, ask any school warden in the morning.

I too, am aware that there is an abundance of crap Irish drivers. However, tougher policing is needed and not council measures such as junction tightening or any other "turn the clock back" solutions. I'm a firm believer in tackling issues like this on an individualist basis and not an overall basis which would likely become burdensome to responsible drivers and those commuting by bus.

homer911 · 07-12-2012 9:45am

DLRCOCO - Review of Operation and Safety

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,8944,en.html

monument · 07-12-2012 10:37am

homer911 wrote: »

DLRCOCO - Review of Operation and Safety

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,8944,en.html

Back to the bad old days of putting cyclists on footpaths and removing all prorirty for them???

Good thing mandtory use was revoked.

OssianSmyth · 07-12-2012 1:56pm

In the attached picture, the top image is the proposed design which is meant to be based on the National Cycle Manual recommended reference design below.

Two things jump out:
1. there is no buffer island protecting the cyclist from traffic while on the roundabout as shown in green on the reference design below
2. The turning angles for bicycles are far sharper on the proposed design than in the reference design, making it harder and slower to use a bike to negotiate this roundabout.

In the past, badly design cycle lanes would include 90 degree angles for bikes which would require stopping to negotiate. This seems to be the case here again. There seems to be no room for public consultation again and no input from cycling groups.

--edit
and zebra crossings have been omitted which would provide some protection for pedestrians

monument · 07-12-2012 2:10pm

Has the law changed to allow mounted cyclists use pedestrian crossings?

I know shared use signs have been put on the books for the first time, but pedestrian crossings are a distinct thing laid out in law -- and unless something has changed recently, cyclists are not allowed to use them.

homer911 · 07-12-2012 2:32pm

monument wrote: »

Has the law changed to allow mounted cyclists use pedestrian crossings?

I know shared use signs have been put on the books for the first time, but pedestrian crossings are a distinct thing laid out in law -- and unless something has changed recently, cyclists are not allowed to use them.

Only if they are toucan crossings..

Chris_5339762 · 07-12-2012 2:58pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Over here in NZ ped lights come on within the main cycle of traffic. so for example if you have a crossroads with roads going N-S and E-W when the lights are green fo N-S traffic they are green fo rpeds to cross the E-W road in the same direction, with turning traffic having to yield to them. Speeds up the whole interchange a lot

This is a prime example of a junction where this happens.

http://goo.gl/maps/eBPkh

The amount of time wasted by traffic waiting for pedestrians there is crazy. No matter which way they want to cross the entire junction is stopped. It also has a stupidly long amber pedestrian sequence (what was wrong with the flashing green man by the way?).

The only satisfying bit about it is that as well as green men, they also have green cycles which are directly in sequence with the green men. Notwithstanding the fights between pedestrians and cyclists that inevitably happen, since its a perfectly square junction it is very entertaining to watch the N-S and S-N cyclists crashing into the E-W and W-E ones.... happens almost every sequence...

monument · 07-12-2012 3:19pm

homer911 wrote: »

Only if they are toucan crossings..

But a toucan crossing can only be a signaled crossing? Is there anything in law that backs the idea of an non-signaled cyclist or shared crossing?

Fratton Fred · 07-12-2012 3:32pm

to say I "Nearly"hit a cyclist the other day is an exaggeration, but a less observant driver may have.

I was turning off the roundabout onto Barnhill road and had to practically stop to allow a cyclist to pass the exit. As I went to move off again, another cyclist had shot up up on my inside and if I hadn't checked my blind spot, I would have hit him.

I know I have to yield to cyclists, but if you can't actually see them, maybe if you are driving a van or a lorry?

That roundabout is bonkers.

nomdeboardie · 07-12-2012 8:21pm

monument wrote: »

Back to the bad old days of putting cyclists on footpaths and removing all prorirty for them???

Good thing mandtory use was revoked.

Re the planned redesign: FFS! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Full vehicular cycling there for me when its implemented, then

Irish and Proud · 08-12-2012 12:49am

monument wrote: »

Back to the bad old days of putting cyclists on footpaths and removing all prorirty for them???

Good thing mandtory use was revoked.

I would certainly agree - have a look at the video of a Dutch roundabout in action on >>this<< page - this is what I mean by Dutch!

The attachment below is a shared road design that I've devised - it caters for both motorists and cyclists on roads with relatively light traffic such as those approaching Killiney Towers. The actual layout fixes the various paths taken by vehicles so as to substantially reduce the problem of side swipe upon exit. The design would require cyclists to negotiate the junction at reasonable cycling speed, and to not attempt to facilitate any overtaking by motorists as this would be dangerous - new legislation would probably be required to enforce this. The design is also much better for pedestrians as there's more clarity in the movement of vehicles. Speed tables are provided for pedestrian and cyclist safety. It must be noted that cyclists would be given priority on approach so that they can take their lanes safely.

Diverge Turbo.jpg

Irish and Proud · 08-12-2012 1:21am

OssianSmyth wrote: »

In the attached picture, the top image is the proposed design which is meant to be based on the National Cycle Manual recommended reference design below.

Two things jump out:
1. there is no buffer island protecting the cyclist from traffic while on the roundabout as shown in green on the reference design below
2. The turning angles for bicycles are far sharper on the proposed design than in the reference design, making it harder and slower to use a bike to negotiate this roundabout.

In the past, badly design cycle lanes would include 90 degree angles for bikes which would require stopping to negotiate. This seems to be the case here again. There seems to be no room for public consultation again and no input from cycling groups.

--edit
and zebra crossings have been omitted which would provide some protection for pedestrians

Bring in Dutch engineers now! :mad:

It would be far better than the gombeens we have here designing urban roads.

Killiney Towers Roundabout is being made narrower!

Comments