Introduction of two way system on Blackthorn Road, Sandyford Industrial Estate

Larbre34 · 02-12-2012 11:38am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Unfortunately, buses will also get held up by the backwards engineering of the road network because they also use the same roads as cars for the most part. In case you didn't notice, there are grass patches between the pedestrian paths and the road itself which would be better suited to the paving of cyclist facilities. This means that the road shape would have remained the same without turning cyclists into obstacles. Eventually (when the economy recovers), underpasses could be provided for pedestrians and cyclists resulting in a conflict free zone for all road users. Hidden cameras and lighting could be installed in the construction phase to ensure that ruffians don't intimidate pedestrians and cyclists using the underpasses.

My sympathy goes out to the motorists who use the M50 to get to Sandyford because they will have to get up earlier to beat the previously non-existent tailbacks. This essentially defeats the purpose of the M50 by adding time to their journeys off it. Moreover, slowing down traffic at crucial points, particularly between major business hubs will put a strain on the flow of business. The purpose of wider roads is to facilitate the smoother flow of business between one hub and another by reducing the journey length time-wise. This creates a stronger link between business hubs and places in general.

While such roads would be used by the private car in the short term, it is hoped that public transport (preferably in the form of bus rapid transit) would be deployed to these roads to reduce car usage in the long term. With traffic calming (pretty much like that in Sandyford), it's merely bus transit and not bus rapid transit. On the broader spectrum, it is a complete joke that it takes an hour in most cases for a bus route to complete a trip that is less than 10 miles in length. This should take half an hour at most. This is one of the main reasons why I strongly disagree with traffic calming on any portion of such routes because it will make them more time consuming. Hence, less attractive. I do acknowledge the fact that excessive stops and neighborhood detours are a major factor as well. Either-way, if the money is not there to create a metro or underground DART system, we should be helping existing bus routes to achieve rapid transit status.

When BRT is rolled out over the next 20 years as a cheap LUAS-lite it will be put on dedicated corridors laid at the expense of existing road space, so all your other preferred business and private traffic will suffer anyway. The NTA have a draft objective to take a lane off the Stillorgan Road to do it. Every single urban traffic plan and objective from now on is to disadvantage the private car, within 10 years that will be aggressively so

patrickbrophy18 · 02-12-2012 10:24pm

Larbre34 wrote: »

When BRT is rolled out over the next 20 years as a cheap LUAS-lite it will be put on dedicated corridors laid at the expense of existing road space, so all your other preferred business and private traffic will suffer anyway. The NTA have a draft objective to take a lane off the Stillorgan Road to do it. Every single urban traffic plan and objective from now on is to disadvantage the private car, within 10 years that will be aggressively so

The problem with all of this is the word in bold. Let's go ahead and implement backwards measures and make it less attractive to do business :rolleyes:. Oh, and while we're at it, let's put a strain on those who actually make a contribution to our economy :rolleyes:. The sad fact is that those who benefit most from such measures are often careless, useless, self-righteous sponges or socialists who revel in the destruction of actual progress. In a time of economic down turn, the last thing we should be doing is adopting policies which cater for such parasites.

Going by the style of your post Larbre34, you obviously agree with the works done in Sandyford Industrial Estate and don't care what effect traffic calming has to the accessibility of business centers. Any money spent disadvantaging the car is such a waste because it will obviously have an impact on bus corridors. I certainly don't think improvements to infrastructure should be done at the expense of anyone. For example, I think if infrastructure is to be improved, it should be for all road users.

Measures such as those in Sandyford are one sided and backward which is a typical Irish solution given that backwardness is still very much so prevalent in our culture today. It makes me embarrassed to be Irish. It's no wonder so many intelligent people are emigrating because we keep on adopting counter-productive laws, policies and measures.

inabina · 02-12-2012 10:34pm

Does anybody know what the logic was for making this 2 way? Could they have implemented cycle lanes without making it 2 way? the introduction of the 2 way system is only offering a second route for traffic to face the beacon hotel bottle neck.. traffic from the area already has multiple options for reaching the beacon hotel area and M50. I just don't get that logic and I know the area well from working in the estate.

Was there a demand from businesses in the area (Des Kelly, Brooks etc.) perhaps?

melekalikimaka · 02-12-2012 11:02pm

i work there, things needed to improve, for one theres barely any bus service in there, luas is ok service, its the idiots who go through westwood that hold me up the most, been tempted to get there early and padlock the gates some mornings, its not a road to be used as it is by people trying to get into the estate

Cookie_Monster · 02-12-2012 11:38pm

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The problem with all of this is the word in bold. Let's go ahead and implement backwards measures and make it less attractive to do business :rolleyes:.

it's not less attractive to business. It means less traffic on the roads so less delay for trucks and shipments. It means more staff using PT or cycling meaning a business can improve it's carbon footprint and provide a positive statement to its customers / shareholders about sustainability and the less cars on the road improves the local area visually, air quality wise and socially.

patrickbrophy18 · 03-12-2012 12:03am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

it's not less attractive to business. It means less traffic on the roads so less delay for trucks and shipments. It means more staff using PT or cycling meaning a business can improve it's carbon footprint and provide a positive statement to its customers / shareholders about sustainability and the less cars on the road improves the local area visually, air quality wise and socially.

Cookie_Monster, do you not agree though that infrastructure improvements in areas like Sandyford should make journey's for those using public transport faster by reducing journey lengths?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for reducing the carbon footprint. However, with the way the various councils are going about it at the moment, you'd swear that bicycles were the one and only solution. While they are entirely fuel efficient and excellent for health, I think public transport has a far more promising future in terms of reducing car usage due to their mechanically propelled nature.

Larbre34, I was in a bad mood when I posted that last reply and I lashed out at you unnecessarily and I'm sorry. I don't disagree with everything you said in your latest post on this thread as the Stillorgan Road does indeed have the space for a brilliant BRT at three lanes in width each way. The unfortunate thing is that traffic calming measures in the Dun Laoghaire burrough anyway are having a negative impact on journey times for buses.

monument · 03-12-2012 12:17am

General question: How many people here are aware that the changes are a part of a compensative plan for the area which already went out to public consultation and has the support of most stakeholders?

@ patrickbrophy the rest of this post is only aimed at you, as here and elsewhere you are directly or indirectly claiming to know a lot about traffic management. It seems you're some sort of expert... It's clear you're jumping the gun with your anti-cycling ranting. Why?...

Reason 1:

All major traffic changes need between a few days to a few weeks (or more) before people get used to them and/or for tweeks to be made.

There's examples of this happening where the focus is to get cars moving faster. It happened recently in Ballina in Co Mayo when a two way system was changed to a one-way system. Everybody complained about the traffic but the traffic quickly settled back down after a short time.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Unfortunately, buses will also get held up by the backwards engineering of the road network because they also use the same roads as cars for the most part. In case you didn't notice, there are grass patches between the pedestrian paths and the road itself which would be better suited to the paving of cyclist facilities. This means that the road shape would have remained the same without turning cyclists into obstacles. Eventually (when the economy recovers), underpasses could be provided for pedestrians and cyclists resulting in a conflict free zone for all road users. Hidden cameras and lighting could be installed in the construction phase to ensure that ruffians don't intimidate pedestrians and cyclists using the underpasses.

My sympathy goes out to the motorists who use the M50 to get to Sandyford because they will have to get up earlier to beat the previously non-existent tailbacks. This essentially defeats the purpose of the M50 by adding time to their journeys off it. Moreover, slowing down traffic at crucial points, particularly between major business hubs will put a strain on the flow of business. The purpose of wider roads is to facilitate the smoother flow of business between one hub and another by reducing the journey length time-wise. This creates a stronger link between business hubs and places in general.

While such roads would be used by the private car in the short term, it is hoped that public transport (preferably in the form of bus rapid transit) would be deployed to these roads to reduce car usage in the long term. With traffic calming (pretty much like that in Sandyford), it's merely bus transit and not bus rapid transit. On the broader spectrum, it is a complete joke that it takes an hour in most cases for a bus route to complete a trip that is less than 10 miles in length. This should take half an hour at most. This is one of the main reasons why I strongly disagree with traffic calming on any portion of such routes because it will make them more time consuming. Hence, less attractive. I do acknowledge the fact that excessive stops and neighborhood detours are a major factor as well. Either-way, if the money is not there to create a metro or underground DART system, we should be helping existing bus routes to achieve rapid transit status.

Reason 2:

A. The changes are not just for cyclists or people on foot, but aimed at maximising the traffic flows in and out of the business park.

B. Bus lanes are included in the changes to the business park under the Sandyford Urban Framework Plan. So:

Did you know bus priority was included but ranted about cyclists anyway? OR,
Did did you not have a clue about the plans and decided to use buses as a way to attack cyclists?

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The problem with all of this is the word in bold. Let's go ahead and implement backwards measures and make it less attractive to do business :rolleyes:. Oh, and while we're at it, let's put a strain on those who actually make a contribution to our economy :rolleyes:. The sad fact is that those who benefit most from such measures are often careless, useless, self-righteous sponges or socialists who revel in the destruction of actual progress. In a time of economic down turn, the last thing we should be doing is adopting policies which cater for such parasites.

Going by the style of your post Larbre34, you obviously agree with the works done in Sandyford Industrial Estate and don't care what effect traffic calming has to the accessibility of business centers. Any money spent disadvantaging the car is such a waste because it will obviously have an impact on bus corridors. I certainly don't think improvements to infrastructure should be done at the expense of anyone. For example, I think if infrastructure is to be improved, it should be for all road users.

Measures such as those in Sandyford are one sided and backward which is a typical Irish solution given that backwardness is still very much so prevalent in our culture today. It makes me embarrassed to be Irish. It's no wonder so many intelligent people are emigrating because we keep on adopting counter-productive laws, policies and measures.

Reason 3:

You might be claiming it was a "bad mood" but really you're showing your true colours by trying to link types of people you don't like with people who choice a modes of transport you don't like to see prioritised, and your basic name calling.

I put some bits in bold because you seem to really like bold bits for some reason

markpb · 03-12-2012 2:15pm

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The sad fact is that those who benefit most from such measures are often careless, useless, self-righteous sponges or socialists who revel in the destruction of actual progress. In a time of economic down turn, the last thing we should be doing is adopting policies which cater for such parasites.

Awesome post, some superb arguments made there :-)

homer911 · 03-12-2012 5:43pm

Latest post from DLRCOCO

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,8918,en.html

(Their graphic is terrible!)

elleelle19 · 03-12-2012 5:55pm

The Bus Gate restrictions on Carmanhall Road have been removed and motorists from this area can now exit directly onto Blackthorn Drive (via the Beacon Retail Area and Dunnes Stores)

It's about time they took down the restrictions at Dunnes, don't think I have ever even seen a bus go through there

Zascar · 03-12-2012 6:00pm

Everyone just ignored it anyway..

[Deleted User] · 03-12-2012 6:39pm

Zascar wrote: »

Everyone just ignored it anyway..

Yeah, i had no idea. I used to exit that way the odd time.

The green light for the turn on blackthorn road is now much longer which has improved things.

The two way system is still an accident waiting to happen. I was looking out the window at lunch when one of the road workers began to remove the cones for the first time. Literally as he removed the second cone a Merc drove in the wrong lane and had to jam on and pull into the left.

Dubl07 · 03-12-2012 7:27pm

elleelle19 wrote: »

It's about time they took down the restrictions at Dunnes, don't think I have ever even seen a bus go through there

Zascar wrote: »

Everyone just ignored it anyway..

Those of us who tended to obey the signage and wanted to exercise our right of way coming out of the Beacon beside Roche Bobois took our lives in our hands. Quite apart from the no-through-road, traffic abjectly ignores the speed limit and there frequently seem to be vans parked to the right there as you exit, blocking visibility.

I was in the estate today and gave up on turning right onto Blackthorn Road after ten or fifteen minutes. Instead I turned left, looped right round via the hospital and down to the Luas to get to Aldi. Pain in the behind.

monument · 03-12-2012 7:41pm

homer911 wrote: »

Latest post from DLRCOCO

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,8918,en.html

(Their graphic is terrible!)

Yeah, it really does not look like something for public consumption. Looks more like a map from deap within a technical document.

monument · 03-12-2012 7:42pm

homer911 wrote: »

Latest post from DLRCOCO

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/newsevents/latestnews/title,8918,en.html

(Their graphic is terrible!)

Yeah, it really does not look like something for public consumption. Looks more like a map from deap within a technical document.

patrickbrophy18 · 03-12-2012 7:46pm

monument wrote: »

@ patrickbrophy the rest of this post is only aimed at you, as here and elsewhere you are directly or indirectly claiming to know a lot about traffic management. It seems you're some sort of expert... It's clear you're jumping the gun with your anti-cycling ranting. Why?...

I'm not anti-cycling as it is fuel efficient and very healthy. On the other hand, I'm anti "turn the clock back solutions:rolleyes:" which is exactly the case in Sandyford Industrial Estate and elsewhere. They could have easily used the green patches on both sides of the road to install cycle lanes instead of taking away the actual road space for said installation. This way, the road geometry and function (i.e. one-way system) stays the same. The following sample map shows more or less what I'm talking about:

Blue: Cobblestone zebra crossings to improve safety for pedestrians.
Orange: Shared cyclist and pedestrian crossing path without cobblestone.
Red: Off road outer cycle path between pedestrian path and road.

monument wrote: »

Reason 1:

All major traffic changes need between a few days to a few weeks (or more) before people get used to them and/or for tweeks to be made.

There's examples of this happening where the focus is to get cars moving faster. It happened recently in Ballina in Co Mayo when a two way system was changed to a one-way system. Everybody complained about the traffic but the traffic quickly settled back down after a short time.

In the Ballina example above, it can only have been an improvement as I can only guess that the former two way roads were not wide enough for bi-directional traffic. One-way roads often cut out the complications involved in two way traffic. This includes the tailbacks caused by right and left turning traffic flow and an easier, comprehensive facilitation of crossroads and other branching roads and lanes. This results in less traffic signal permutations whereby a lot more time can be redistributed back to the green man offering pedestrians more crossing opportunities and hence priority. Ergo, it's a win-win situation for all.

monument wrote: »

Reason 2:

A. The changes are not just for cyclists or people on foot, but aimed at maximising the traffic flows in and out of the business park.

B. Bus lanes are included in the changes to the business park under the Sandyford Urban Framework Plan. So:
Did you know bus priority was included but ranted about cyclists anyway? OR,

Did did you not have a clue about the plans and decided to use buses as a way to attack cyclists?

In this particular thread, we are talking about Blackthorn Road where the backwards engineering in question was carried out. I saw the proposed layout from their website which didn't include a bus lane on Blackthorn Road despite the fact that it is used by the 114 bus. I can't see a bus lane on this map here. Also, the council have decided to place cycle lanes on the road when there was more than enough space on the green patches for the provision of a completely segregated cycle path. The map I provided above shows how this could have been achieved.

monument wrote: »

Reason 3:

You might be claiming it was a "bad mood" but really you're showing your true colours by trying to link types of people you don't like with people who choice a modes of transport you don't like to see prioritised, and your basic name calling.

I put some bits in bold because you seem to really like bold bits for some reason

I have to admit that the small type face made me laugh

. I was in a bad mood at the time of my reply two posts ago whether you believe it or not. Anyway, I have no gripe with road users in general. I do have a gripe with irresponsible ones and this includes irresponsible motorists too.

Larbre34 · 04-12-2012 1:15am

markpb wrote: »

Awesome post, some superb arguments made there :-)

indeed, makes Hitler look like a centrist does our Patrick

sk8board · 05-12-2012 9:51pm

how have these changes been working out for the 9-5 commuters - how long does it take to get from Microsoft area to the M50?

Paddy

monument · 05-12-2012 10:46pm

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I'm not anti-cycling as it is fuel efficient and very healthy. On the other hand, I'm anti "turn the clock back solutions:rolleyes:" which is exactly the case in Sandyford Industrial Estate and elsewhere. They could have easily used the green patches on both sides of the road to install cycle lanes instead of taking away the actual road space for said installation. This way, the road geometry and function (i.e. one-way system) stays the same. The following sample map shows more or less what I'm talking about:.......

Problems with that are as follows:

They are not reversing the flow of general traffic for cycling. Contra-flow cycle lanes could be done without changing the traffic flow. The aim is also to change flows in and out of the estate -- including to push or force some traffic on to underutilised roads and away from the busier roads, and optimising exit and entry points. One-way everywhere isn't always best for traffic.
Even if we did not have the above problem listed... The designers are almost exclusively working with the current road, which is a low cost solution. Your solution on the other hand, has huge cost implications.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

In the Ballina example above, it can only have been an improvement as I can only guess that the former two way roads were not wide enough for bi-directional traffic....[/B].

Wrong.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I have to admit that the small type face made me laugh . I was in a bad mood at the time of my reply two posts ago whether you believe it or not. Anyway, I have no gripe with road users in general. I do have a gripe with irresponsible ones and this includes irresponsible motorists too.

We'll agree to disagree on this but I maintain you showed your true colours -- everybody else can make up their own minds.

patrickbrophy18 · 05-12-2012 11:56pm

monument wrote: »

They are not reversing the flow of general traffic for cycling.

Duly noted monument. The function of the road is entirely different though with cycle lanes in parts.

monument wrote: »

Contra-flow cycle lanes could be done without changing the traffic flow.

I've never understood the purpose of contra-flow cycle lanes. Would that not be more dangerous for cyclists?

monument wrote: »

The aim is also to change flows in and out of the estate -- including to push or force some traffic on to underutilised roads and away from the busier roads, and optimising exit and entry points.

I can appreciate this alright. In essence, it creates a more even distribution of traffic around the estate. In fact, a CPO was made around the corner from this road for a new stretch of road. I wonder if this has anything to do with it?

monument wrote: »

One-way everywhere isn't always best for traffic.

I agree there too. It could become very problematic if huge detours were being made. One-way systems are usually implemented in heavy traffic conditions where parallel roads exist in close proximity with ample connector lanes for turning around.

monument wrote: »

Even if we did not have the above problem listed... The designers are almost exclusively working with the current road, which is a low cost solution.

I understand this as on-road cycle lanes only require a paint job on the tarmac with bicycle symbols on it. Depending on the condition of the tarmac, it might need partial or complete resurfacing to minimize turbulence and other discomforts experienced by cyclists. As a matter of interest, how much to road signs cost to make?

monument wrote: »

Your solution on the other hand, has huge cost implications.

How goes that?

Bar Blackthorn Drive, every other road in Sandyford Industrial Estate has grass patches between the pedestrian path and the roads themselves. According to Google Earth, most of them are well over 2 meters in width which would be perfect for a relatively extensive series of spacious segregated cycle paths. There are grass patches that are 4 meters in width which could accommodate two way cycle tracks.

Having said all of that, the collective cost of doing this to all roads in the estate would probably be tens of millions. Nevertheless, breaking a project like this into small sub-projects over a 10 - 15 year period shouldn't incur a huge annual cost. Then again, that's just my opinion.

monument wrote: »

Wrong.

My bad!:D

I've only been through Ballina once and that was on my way back from Westport. I'll take your word for it!;)

ted1 · 06-12-2012 7:04pm

A contra flow lane may be safer, as cyclists see on coming traffic as oppose to traffic coming from the rear.

omb0wyn5ehpij9 · 06-12-2012 11:32pm

On the way home frmo work this evening I saw somebody in an Audi jeep drive go down Arkle road from Carmanhall road, drive up and over the footpath/grass verge at the end of the road and then straight onto Blackthorn Avenue!

Dubl07 · 06-12-2012 11:34pm

BDJW wrote: »

On the way home frmo work this evening I saw somebody in an Audi jeep drive go down Arkle road from Carmanhall road, drive up and over the footpath/grass verge at the end of the road and then straight onto Blackthorn Avenue!

Anarchy! Hurray!!!

patrickbrophy18 · 07-12-2012 12:16am

BDJW wrote: »

On the way home frmo work this evening I saw somebody in an Audi jeep drive go down Arkle road from Carmanhall road, drive up and over the footpath/grass verge at the end of the road and then straight onto Blackthorn Avenue!

There's no excuse for that at all. It sound's like the driver was either over the limit or was generally a dangerously s&*t driver. He/she should count themselves lucky that no-one was critically injured or even worse, killed in the process. For his/her sake, I hope the rest of their journey went a hell of a lot smoother than that and more importantly, that nobody fell victim to the drivers reckless behavior. If I was there, I would have taken down the number plate and reported the incident to the guards.

[Deleted User] · 07-12-2012 12:30am

BDJW wrote: »

On the way home frmo work this evening I saw somebody in an Audi jeep drive go down Arkle road from Carmanhall road, drive up and over the footpath/grass verge at the end of the road and then straight onto Blackthorn Avenue!

It would actually be great if that was an exit. Instead everyone coming out of the two Atrium buildings car park has to head one way into a bottleneck.

RE*AC*TOR · 07-12-2012 11:42am

Colleague of mine was hit by another motorist turning in the "new" wrong direction on the Blackthorn Rd.

monument · 10-12-2012 12:42am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Duly noted monument. The function of the road is entirely different though with cycle lanes in parts.

I've never understood the purpose of contra-flow cycle lanes. Would that not be more dangerous for cyclists?

I can appreciate this alright. In essence, it creates a more even distribution of traffic around the estate. In fact, a CPO was made around the corner from this road for a new stretch of road. I wonder if this has anything to do with it?

I agree there too. It could become very problematic if huge detours were being made. One-way systems are usually implemented in heavy traffic conditions where parallel roads exist in close proximity with ample connector lanes for turning around.

I understand this as on-road cycle lanes only require a paint job on the tarmac with bicycle symbols on it. Depending on the condition of the tarmac, it might need partial or complete resurfacing to minimize turbulence and other discomforts experienced by cyclists. As a matter of interest, how much to road signs cost to make?

How goes that?

Bar Blackthorn Drive, every other road in Sandyford Industrial Estate has grass patches between the pedestrian path and the roads themselves. According to Google Earth, most of them are well over 2 meters in width which would be perfect for a relatively extensive series of spacious segregated cycle paths. There are grass patches that are 4 meters in width which could accommodate two way cycle tracks.

Having said all of that, the collective cost of doing this to all roads in the estate would probably be tens of millions. Nevertheless, breaking a project like this into small sub-projects over a 10 - 15 year period shouldn't incur a huge annual cost. Then again, that's just my opinion.

My bad!:D

I've only been through Ballina once and that was on my way back from Westport. I'll take your word for it!;)

Quick reply:

Contra-flow is used to allow bicycles / buses etc to go against the general flow of traffic when you don't have the space to allow all the traffic to go two way or where you don't want all traffic to go two way (it could be you want traffic to flow differently or you want to restrict it etc).

Contra-flow has a good safety record. When done even half right, there shoud be no safety issue.

Turning green area into a cycle path, footpath or a general road lane is a lot more costly than just painting lines and putting up signs to rework the road space you have. When digging up green space to change it you are likely to have extra planning costs, extra material costs, extra man power costs, extra equipment costs, more costs related to utilities, waste costs etc.

Irish and Proud · 11-12-2012 12:40am

Zascar wrote: »

I left way after 6pm tonight on purpose, usually by this time its pretty free but it was still at a standstill. The length of the slip road to turn left towards the luas tracks is about 5m, ridiculous, they should have brought it way back. Then the sequence of the lights to turn right towards Sandyford has got even worse!! Not kidding, the right filter light is green for 5 seconds. One guy was slow off the mark, got beeped, and at least 4 cars then proceeded to break the red and go through anyway. Do these idiots not realise that making a stupid sequence makes people do silly things, increasing the changes of an accident? Honestly we should demand a proper explanation of what this was done, someone should hang for this monstrosity...

The short left lane! - You have the National Transport Authority (NTA) and their National Cycle Manual spec to thank for that - the NTA do not want left turn lanes any longer than 30m in Urban Areas. There's a much better way devised by the Dutch for handling motorists and cyclists at junctions - my feeling is that the NTA are just anti-car and are using cyclists as an excuse for their anti-car measures. The type of junction just built in Sandyford is no longer recommended in Holland - the left turning motorists should be in a separate lane and on a different phase to other traffic movements so that cyclists can cross the left turning traffic path (at the junction) safely. With that done, the length of the left lane should not make any difference to cyclists as they would remain to the left all the way to the junction where they would be phased in properly.

lechiennoir · 12-12-2012 11:21am

My heart goes out to anyone commuting to the Sandyford Industrial Estate by car. The place is an absolute catastrophe.

wally79 · 18-12-2012 6:06pm

I think at least part of the problem can be traced back to the clever idea to bring the luas bridge down on the bewleys side of the road rather than extending it over one of the main sandyford exits.

I am no engineer but wouldnt it have been possible and sensible not to put a luas crossing on such a busy junction?

Introduction of two way system on Blackthorn Road, Sandyford Industrial Estate

Comments