Killiney Towers Roundabout is being made narrower!

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

But pedestrians should always come second to motorists?

Pedestrians are actually slower than cars. So, to answer your question, yeah.

The re-engineering of the roundabout is basically spoon feeding on massive scale. The roundabout was fine the way it was. I just think that, as a pedestrian myself, too many of my fellow pedestrians are clumsy and think the road network is just a playground without rules. A lot of them seem to think that everything should be handed to them on a plate. Than again, this is just another example of how many people in this country over estimate their entitlements. It really is quite pathetic!

monument wrote: »

And who delays motorists the most?

Motorists do, there too many of them for your utopian free flow world and building more capacity has been proven time and time again to just drive demand up.

In case you didn't notice, traffic calming also delays motorists needlessly. As to your sample answer, routes with extra capacity make towns along their alignments more attractive to visit as they are easier to get in and out of. As such, jeopardizing the businesses in these towns (especially in a recession) by compromising access routes just for pedestrians and cyclists is completely unnecessary.

monument wrote: »

And motorists do no wrong... Or is that huge percentages of them break the law all the time?!

I acknowledged many times in this thread that Ireland is rampant with crap drivers. However, better policing is needed for this and not some idiotic spoon feeding method like the re-engineering of Killiney Towers.

monument wrote: »

It's sick that you're trying to use that man's clearly unrelated death to push your agenda.

On that note, I heard that this cyclist hated the new roundabout. I have also heard from a good few people that cyclist was thrown onto the tarmac and into the path of a moving vehicle when his bike clipped the rubber kerbing. This sounds way too detailed to be a rumor as per your earlier assertion.

You can say that I'm sick all you want. At the end of the day, I think that you're way too sensitive. Going by your online signature, your a journalist. As such, I assume you are aware that newspapers report deaths as well on daily basis. Does that make them sick?

Than again, you're obviously trying to snap up a guilt tripping tactic towards yours truly. IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK!

monument wrote: »

The safety audit is conducted for the council but independently of the council.

The council had input but so did residents etc.

This is the same council who paid a private company about two years ago to carry out an audit to see how their stringent pay and display schemes affect business. Unsurprisingly, the private company said it didn't because they would be betraying their customers. In other words, I suspect that this was a conflict of interest.

markpb wrote: »

The roundabout was altered to give more priority to pedestrians and cyclists and to make them feel safer. You can go on about looking before you cross the road and a few cars in a traffic jam but it's irrelevant. You're mixing up safety with priority.

Like I said earlier on, the re-engineering of the roundabout is basically spoon feeding on massive scale. The roundabout was fine the way it was. I just think that, as a pedestrian myself, too many of my fellow pedestrians are clumsy and think the road network is just a playground without rules. A lot of them seem to think that everything should be handed to them on a plate. Than again, this is just another example of how many people in this country over estimate their entitlements.

Regardless of peak or off peak, many of the pedestrians are casual pedestrians who aren't in a rush. Therefore, giving them more priority is just not necessary.

monument wrote: »

Another good question is why can't it be "a matter of patience" for motorist?

Because a lot of them have to get to places like work!

zagmund

This discussion is funny, yet not. Scary, yet not. There are just so many holes in your arguments it's hard to know where to start. I'll have a quick bash at some of your points . . .

a) "Because a lot of them have to get to places like work!" -> and pedestrians and cyclists don't ?
b) "Regardless of peak or off peak, many of the pedestrians are casual pedestrians who aren't in a rush. Therefore, giving them more priority is just not necessary." -> I'll update this one for you again - Regardless of peak or off peak, many of the drivers are casual drivers who aren't in a rush. Therefore, giving them more priority is just not necessary. See what I did there ?
c) "routes with extra capacity make towns along their alignments more attractive to visit as they are easier to get in and out of" -> and what happens when the drivers get to these towns ? They park their cars and turn into apparently imbecile pedestrians who no longer warrant consideration in road layouts in the towns ?
d) "Pedestrians are actually slower than cars" -> yeah, and my Ferarri is faster than Mrs Smiths Micra, so what ?
e) "The re-engineering of the roundabout is basically spoon feeding on massive scale. The roundabout was fine the way it was. I just think that, as a pedestrian myself, too many of my fellow pedestrians are clumsy and think the road network is just a playground without rules. A lot of them seem to think that everything should be handed to them on a plate. Than again, this is just another example of how many people in this country over estimate their entitlements." -> you can say that again. Oh wait, you did. Word for word in the same post.

z

le petit braquet

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

On that note, I heard that this cyclist hated the new roundabout. I have also heard from a good few people that cyclist was thrown onto the tarmac and into the path of a moving vehicle when his bike clipped the rubber kerbing. This sounds way too detailed to be a rumor as per your earlier assertion.
!

From The Irish Times
"The man was found at about 8.45pm in a collapsed but conscious state on Barnhill Road, Dalkey, on September 28th. He was treated at the scene, close to the Avondale Road roundabout, by an ambulance crew and taken to St Vincent's hospital."

Clearly from this, he was not hit by a vehicle in the circumstances you describe, and he was found on Barnhill Road not the roundabout.

patrickbrophy18

le petit braquet wrote: »

Patrick embraces a commuting hierarchy where those using motorised transport are the feudal lords, and pedestrians and cyclists are mere peasants.

This is a little bit childish don't you think?

Going by your collective attitudes, if posters like yourself, monument, Seaswimmer, markpb, zagmund and schemingbohemia had your ways, all roads in the country (never-mind the borough) would be pedestrianized with bi-directional cycleways galore.

I certainly don't want to be living in a country dominated by cyclists with no other faster way to get around. Cars and buses weren't designed to be delayed as per their top speeds. Buses certainly weren't designed to negotiate tight junctions and narrow road ways. They are like large mobile homes for people transportation. Moreover, their purpose is largely being defeated by moves such as the re-engineering of Killiney Towers Roundabout. While this may make cycling more attractive, it is being done in the most retarded and inconvenient way possible. In other words, the speed of buses and cars is being rounded down to closer match cycle speeds which is incredibly idiotic.

There is also an extensive network of side roads surrounding Killiney Towers Roundabout equipped with interconnecting lane ways including the recently refurbished metals cycle way. If cyclists and pedestrians are feeling intimidated by main stream traffic, use the side roads instead of becoming a nuisance. Then again, many of these people are self righteous.

le petit braquet wrote: »

He as a self-confessed pedestrian is apparently content with his lot, and cannot see why the rest of us aren't.

And I shouldn't be content? Why?

Once again, I am an observant pedestrian. It only takes a few seconds. Not much. As such, I am setting an example to my fellow pedestrians. I take it that the aforementioned posters aren't observant and are becoming defensive of it. If y'all were, you might find that there are far more crossing opportunities than you think.

zagmund

OK, you win.

z

p.s. I've heard that the NRA wants to build a motorway from your front garden to your back garden. It will probably involve knocking down your house. It may end up being just a single carriageway link road sort of thing though. It seems your house doesn't move fast enough and someone complained that their car can't travel at the fastest possible speed from outside their house to the chipper on the other road. Your house has to go. This is what happens when avoiding delays to motorists is what drives the agenda.

Irish and Proud

zagmund wrote: »

This discussion is funny, yet not. Scary, yet not. There are just so many holes in your arguments it's hard to know where to start. I'll have a quick bash at some of your points . . .

a) "Because a lot of them have to get to places like work!" -> and pedestrians and cyclists don't ?
b) "Regardless of peak or off peak, many of the pedestrians are casual pedestrians who aren't in a rush. Therefore, giving them more priority is just not necessary." -> I'll update this one for you again - Regardless of peak or off peak, many of the drivers are casual drivers who aren't in a rush. Therefore, giving them more priority is just not necessary. See what I did there ?
c) "routes with extra capacity make towns along their alignments more attractive to visit as they are easier to get in and out of" -> and what happens when the drivers get to these towns ? They park their cars and turn into apparently imbecile pedestrians who no longer warrant consideration in road layouts in the towns ?
d) "Pedestrians are actually slower than cars" -> yeah, and my Ferarri is faster than Mrs Smiths Micra, so what ?
e) "The re-engineering of the roundabout is basically spoon feeding on massive scale. The roundabout was fine the way it was. I just think that, as a pedestrian myself, too many of my fellow pedestrians are clumsy and think the road network is just a playground without rules. A lot of them seem to think that everything should be handed to them on a plate. Than again, this is just another example of how many people in this country over estimate their entitlements." -> you can say that again. Oh wait, you did. Word for word in the same post.

z

Look, I'm sick of all this partisan rubbish - all modes of transport are simply like tools in a toolkit - all tools are good as long as the right tool is used for the right job - unfortunately, many authorities and politicians are simply bad workmen blaming their tools instead of themselves - they blame cars instead of the economic system, policies and political choices that created the unsustainable practices that have developed in society. Many people were forced to have cars because of the greater commuting distances (caused by the property system) and the poor standard of public transport - now the Dart Underground is not going to be built - how about stopping all grants to businesses and farmers and concentrating on infrastructure instead - that includes our terrible broadband system! :mad:

Also, if we are going to provide better cycling infrastructure, then it must be done properly and that includes dedicated cycle infrastructure such as cycle overpasses above or around the M50 junctions - this could be done as part of further upgrades to M50 junctions as such cycle routes would have to be constructed to very high engineering standards rather than the afterthoughts that are now present - something I wouldn't even call cycling infrastructure ('cycle route' :rolleyes: through M50/N4 junction for example). Also, downgrades at major traffic junctions to 'accommodate' cyclists is no solution - it's just more gombeenism that is typical of pen pushers. In the case of Killiney Towers, the roundabout should have been totally reconstructed so that the cycle track was segregated by a grass margin. Also, the tight turns and the proximity of pedestrian crossings to the circulatory carriageway makes IMO things difficult for pedestrians, amid the confusion caused by the lack of clarity of what direction cars and cyclists are going.

Another solution might be to give cyclists complete priority (given the relatively low traffic volumes) on approach to the roundabout and have one lane only (motorists and cyclists) going right around (360 deg) with auxiliary lanes from the various entry points to their respective next exits - this IMO would make things much clearer for pedestrians - especially with a proper grass margin segregating the footpath - with a grass margin and shared roundabout arrangement, the turns would not need to be so tight IMO. What I also couldn't understand about Killiney Towers RAB is why the pedestrian crossings did not have zebras. Again, what have the NTA being doing - did they really put any thought into their designs? Did they visit places like Denmark, the Netherlands to see what designs might work?

I'm really starting to get worried as I think about it in more detail - is this really just about creating more jobs for the boys - downgrading junctions, only having to upgrade them again - 2 jobs for the price of one - with tax payer's money? :mad:

schemingbohemia

Given the speed that drivers approached this roundabout (particularly from Barnhill Road and Albert Road) previously it was dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, now it's not. Job done in my view.

markpb

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Going by your collective attitudes, if posters like yourself, monument, Seaswimmer, markpb, zagmund and schemingbohemia had your ways, all roads in the country (never-mind the borough) would be pedestrianized with bi-directional cycleways galore.

Do you imagine us all sitting around bearded, wearing clothes made from hemp and singing kumbaya too?

All the things you're proposing sound rational and normal but they've been tried and tested and proven not to work. Los Angles from the 60s to the 90s did everything you've suggested and all they achieved was massive car dependency because (among other reasons) it made non-car travel extremely unattractive.

I certainly don't want to be living in a country dominated by cyclists with no other faster way to get around. Cars and buses weren't designed to be delayed as per their top speeds.

No matter what you do, how wide the roads are, how much priority you give them, cars will never reach anything approaching their top speeds in urban areas. Do you know why - other cars.

Making a road more attractive will achieve two things - vehicular traffic will transfer from less attractive roads and extra traffic will be caused when people make more discretionary trips. Then you'll have to build freeways to cope with the traffic. The freeways will be even more attractive so you'll have to widen them and build more of them. Then the junctions and feeder roads will be congested so you'll have to widen them, demolishing houses and schools. Eventually, you'll end up like Los Angles spending $1bn adding two more lanes to the already 10 lane I405 in the hope that a HOV lane might help a little (although CalDOT and LACMTA state that it won't actually improve traffic any, it just keeps things at the status quo).

Thankfully, the NTA and DlrCoco disagree with your outdated assumptions and ideas. The current development plans include gems like this

12.1.12 Policy T12: Cycling and Walking
It is Council policy to promote and encourage more healthy sustainable environmentally friendly forms of transportation such as walking and to make the footway network accessible for all.

National Cycle Policy Framework
Objective 2: Ensure that the urban road infrastructure (with the exception of
motorways) is designed / retrofitted so as to be cyclist- friendly and that traffic
management measures are also cyclist friendly.

DLR Cycling Policy
CP 1.3 Cycling and existing developments
Undertake retro-fit projects within existing urban areas and developments, both
residential and commercial, to create cycle friendly permeable routes that are
attractive to cyclists of all ages and abilities.

NTA 2030 Vision
Measure WCY 3:
Reconfigurations to street space including widening of footpaths [...] Revisions in junction layouts where appropriate, to reduce pedestrian crossing distances, provide more direct pedestrian routes and reduce the speed of turning traffic

The adjusting of traffic signal controls where appropriate to reduce the wait
time for pedestrians in town centres and other built up areas

Measure WCY 11:
Target measures to improve the cycling environment in areas where there is the
greatest potential for trips in cycling distance range.

These things are being incorporated into road upgrade schemes right now.

patrickbrophy18

markpb wrote: »

Do you imagine us all sitting around bearded, wearing clothes made from hemp and singing kumbaya too?

Right! So, I jumped the gun a bit on y'all! I'm sorry!:(

markpb wrote: »

All the things you're proposing sound rational and normal but they've been tried and tested and proven not to work. Los Angles from the 60s to the 90s did everything you've suggested and all they achieved was massive car dependency because (among other reasons) it made non-car travel extremely unattractive.

I'll agree with some of this alright. The last 1/2 to 3/4 of a century was marked by a series of bad decisions which drove car dependency up inexorably. In no particular order here they are:

• The decision to dismantle an extensive network of tram routes and national rail routes.
• Non strategic residential development which engulfed the radial villages and country side which transformed them into towns and suburbs.
• Failure to confine commercial developments along existing and former rail lines or convenient to the city center. Those along the M50 are prime examples.
• The depletion of the Dublin Bus network.
• The incremental pricing of houses nearer to the city center forcing people on modest salaries to live in the suburbs or even the sticks.
• The limited coverage of the DART network.

There are probably many more other factors. So, feel free to enlighten me!:)

markpb wrote: »

Making a road more attractive will achieve two things - vehicular traffic will transfer from less attractive roads and extra traffic will be caused when people make more discretionary trips. Then you'll have to build freeways to cope with the traffic. The freeways will be even more attractive so you'll have to widen them and build more of them. Then the junctions and feeder roads will be congested so you'll have to widen them, demolishing houses and schools. Eventually, you'll end up like Los Angles spending $1bn adding two more lanes to the already 10 lane I405 in the hope that a HOV lane might help a little (although CalDOT and LACMTA state that it won't actually improve traffic any, it just keeps things at the status quo).

There is a large element of truth about what you are saying here. Unfortunately, extra capacity isn't being used sensibly. For example, the newly constructed Monkstown Ring Road isn't being used to it's full potential or intended use. The only bus route serving it is the 7B with a "mind-blowing:rolleyes:" 4 buses per direction Monday to Friday. Outside of this, it is very much an inactive QBC very much like the ones you named earlier on in the thread. In this particular example, there was no co-operation between Dublin Bus, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (DLRCOCO) and the National Transport Authority (NTA) nor consultation with the residents nearby. While the demand for an all day 7B might not be there, the 175 route would have augmented the 7B and made better use of it. If funds in Dublin Bus are scarce, a private operator like Finnegan's of Bray should be heavily encouraged to make good use of it.

markpb wrote: »

Thankfully, the NTA and DlrCoco disagree with your outdated assumptions and ideas. The current development plans include gems like this:

Omitted quoted examples due to systematic constraints of quotes within quotes.:D


These things are being incorporated into road upgrade schemes right now.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I don't agree with the current set of solutions provided by DLRCOCO or the NTA. I'll go out on a limb here and show you a potential alternative to the Killiney Towers Roundabout. It's a crossroads with five radial branches as opposed to the traditional four. I call it The Starfish due to it's shape. It's a work in progress as I do intend to make slight to medium alterations. So, feel free to give feedback:D. Without further ado, I give you Killiney Towers Starfish:



It follows a set layout for each junction. Here is an explanation of the colour codes:

Magenta Lines: The traffic direction towards the crossroads which goes from two lanes to three. Each lane distributes traffic in a different direction bar the road immediately left*. The left lane distributes traffic to the road ahead baring left. The middle lane distributes traffic to the road ahead baring right. Finally, the right lane accommodates traffic turning completely right.
*Green Lines: A single lane branch from the Magenta Lines accommodating traffic performing a complete left turn with wide entry radius for trucks and buses.
Blue Lines: A single lane road carrying traffic away from the crossroads.
Grey Areas: Raised concrete for paths, traffic islands and medians, mainly for use by pedestrians and cyclists.
Orange Areas: Designated pedestrian and cyclist crossing facilities.
Purple Areas: Raised cycle paths for cyclists performing sharp lefts.
Red Areas: Standard resting areas for cyclists to the front of each carriage way.

Each individual junction forming the Killiney Towers Starfish above would be synchronized to allow 40 seconds for motorised traffic and with flow cyclists and 20 seconds for dismounted cyclists and pedestrian traffic.

schemingbohemia

Put the crayons away!

It's done, they're not going to dig it up and put in traffic lights now no matter how many pwetty colours you put in.

Irish and Proud

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

<snip>


It follows a set layout for each junction. Here is an explanation of the colour codes:

Magenta Lines: The traffic direction towards the crossroads which goes from two lanes to three. Each lane distributes traffic in a different direction bar the road immediately left*. The left lane distributes traffic to the road ahead baring left. The middle lane distributes traffic to the road ahead baring right. Finally, the right lane accommodates traffic turning completely right.
*Green Lines: A single lane branch from the Magenta Lines accommodating traffic performing a complete left turn with wide entry radius for trucks and buses.
Blue Lines: A single lane road carrying traffic away from the crossroads.
Grey Areas: Raised concrete for paths, traffic islands and medians, mainly for use by pedestrians and cyclists.
Orange Areas: Designated pedestrian and cyclist crossing facilities.
Purple Areas: Raised cycle paths for cyclists performing sharp lefts.
Red Areas: Standard resting areas for cyclists to the front of each carriage way.

Each individual junction forming the Killiney Towers Starfish above would be synchronized to allow 40 seconds for motorised traffic and with flow cyclists and 20 seconds for dismounted cyclists and pedestrian traffic.

Looks Interesting...

With a tweak on the timings - this could work! - I'd probably give at least 40 seconds for pedestrians and dismounted cyclists - also, could one or two of these roads be made one-way so as to simplify things and save time? - for example, an exit only road would not require a phase.

Irish and Proud

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Put the crayons away!

It's done, they're not going to dig it up and put in traffic lights now no matter how many pwetty colours you put in.

...until someone is killed or badly injured - I believe some councilors are complaining about the new design - there have apparently been accidents involving cyclist where none were happening before. I have serious reason to believe that the National Transport Authority (responsible for cycling design standards) have not done their research properly in relation to cycling infrastructure. The following is an example IMO:


Source: www.cyclemanual.ie

Their new signal priority designs for example have long since been discontinued in Holland it seems - this is how the Dutch handle things at traffic lights! See this also...

patrickbrophy18

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Looks Interesting...

With a tweak on the timings - this could work! - I'd probably give at least 40 seconds for pedestrians and dismounted cyclists - also, could one or two of these roads be made one-way so as to simplify things and save time?

I've always thought that Albert and Adelaide Roads could be made into a mass one way system accommodating west and east bound traffic respectively. If this happened, it would allow the third filter lane towards the proposed starfish junction from each road to be decommissioned.

Collectively, this would free up more than enough space to widen the medians making them more pedestrian friendly. The lane merge between Upper Glenageary Road and Albert Road would be removed as east bound traffic would no longer be allowed to operate through it. The left over space would enable the traffic island, median and curb at this point to be merged.

Albert Road would be the only road remaining with 3 lanes at the front of the junction: one for Killiney Road, one for Avondale Road and one for Upper Glenageary Road. Like the rest, it would be equipped with a wide angled left slip lane onto Barnhill Road. Anyway, here is revision 2:



Green Areas: Another major addition to the above design is greenery on top of redundant concrete space.

Other minor alterations include the extension of medians to enclose the cycle resting areas as they are always located at the front of a carriage way at the side traveling onwards.

Larbre34

Well done Patrick, you've just replicated the design of the junction that replaced the roundabout at Kill Avenue/Mounttown/The Farm, and we know what a complete pigs mickey that turned out to be.

Traffic efficiency aside I think that location would look far worse without the landscaped roundabout at Killiney Towers and theres more to life than junction capacity and turning movements, as somebody said before if it was up to you we'd end up with a mini Los Angeles

Irish and Proud

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Given the speed that drivers approached this roundabout (particularly from Barnhill Road and Albert Road) previously it was dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, now it's not. Job done in my view.

Ramps???

Irish and Proud

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Put the crayons away!

It's done, they're not going to dig it up and put in traffic lights now no matter how many pwetty colours you put in.

They're not going to dig it up??? You really want to bet???

schemingbohemia

Yes, any money you like.

Irish and Proud

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Yes, any money you like.

Well in 2000, that is exactly what happened in Fairview D3 on the Malahide QBC. In 1998, the main road there (alongside the park) was reduced from 6 to 5 lanes and the then decent left lane for Malahide was reduced to a tiny pocket - even worse than what the NTA is suggesting for such nowadays. The result was significant traffic congestion, side swipe accidents etc. - it had to be reversed in 2000 when the sixth traffic lane was reinstated (with the new concrete buildouts jack-hammered) - albeit with a diffent configuration. The end result was a reasonable left lane for Malahide - it has AFAIK remained unchanged since then.

So yes, I wouldn't bet on it with the way things are done in this country (and many other Western countries of course).

monument

Irish and Proud wrote: »

They're not going to dig it up??? You really want to bet???

I'll bet that the only changes will be minor ones.

Minor includes adding signs and markings, making the cycling buildouts larger and more permanent. Maybe even ramps, or zebra crosssing or the like.

Irish and Proud

monument wrote: »

I'll bet that the only changes will be minor ones.

Minor includes adding signs and markings, making the cycling buildouts larger and more permanent. Maybe even ramps, or zebra crosssing or the like.

Look, I've posted enough proof IMO (on various forums) that the NTA are either:

1). Incompetent;
2). Procuring jobs for the boys;
3). Just anti-car and not really interested in cyclists/pedestrians - just look at the Dutch designs I've posted lately.

It's funny really, I devised another junction design today and the left lane is actually an integral part of eliminating cyclist/left turning traffic conflict and improving the efficiency of cycle throughput - in fact, I omitted the right turn lane instead as the overall phasing (clock-style) allows right turn and straight through traffic to be prioritized simultaneously - the corresponding left traffic (in relation to right turning traffic) is also processed in that phase. This system allows cyclists to proceed through and left. Right turning cyclists would proceed through and wait very little time to cross the second road - they do so on the very next phase. Will try and post the diagram later.

The NTA has IMO got it a***ways!

Irish and Proud

Photo0892 - Copy.jpg

This is my sketch for the type of junction I drew today...

... the red arrows (with yellow highlight) depict the first phase, the green arrows depict the next phase as the signal system deals with each arm (with the exception of left turning traffic) separately in a clockwise manner - in theory, one could continuously walk around this junction in circles in a clockwise direction - this also creates a favourable setup for right turning cyclists. The traffic turning left into the arm being dealt with is processed as opposed to traffic turning left out of the arm. This should completely eliminate conflict with pedestrians and cyclists who are crossing in parallel to (and to the left of) the straight through motor traffic on the green light. Also, look at the way in which the junction is configured so that many people with mobility issues might now be able to cross - they would have no more than 7m (2 lanes) to take on at any one time.

schemingbohemia

What a lovely little drawing, now any chance of some measurements on it?

A signalised "roundabout" like yours will actually cause more delays than are currently the case at Killiney Towers roundabout. The facts are that it is only Barnhill Road itself that suffers any tailback and even that is minor according to the safety audit carried out. Your drawing seems to me to be way more complicated than the current system that actually works - you're trying to solve a "problem" that doesn't actually exist.

Irish and Proud

schemingbohemia wrote: »

What a lovely little drawing, now any chance of some measurements on it?

A signalised "roundabout" like yours will actually cause more delays than are currently the case at Killiney Towers roundabout. The facts are that it is only Barnhill Road itself that suffers any tailback and even that is minor according to the safety audit carried out. Your drawing seems to me to be way more complicated than the current system that actually works - you're trying to solve a "problem" that doesn't actually exist.

Are you talking about Patrick's or my design - my drawing is a generic concept for a four arm junction with 3 lane QBC roads. Patrick's design IMO makes a lot more sense than what the NTA have come up with - even if a few tweaks are needed, at least it's safer.

schemingbohemia

Was talking about yours which I now realise has nothing to do with Killiney Towers roundabout so why not go off and set up a new thread in infrastructure to discuss your crayon drawings.

In relation to Patrick's drawings, the design for Killiney Towers has been deemed safe and not a hindrance to traffic by a safety audit, so why bother making changes to a safe roundabout?

Irish and Proud

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Was talking about yours which I now realise has nothing to do with Killiney Towers roundabout so why not go off and set up a new thread in infrastructure to discuss your crayon drawings.

Let me guess...

...you're of some old school profession or establishment that snobberishly looks down on ordinary guys like me making suggestions and providing sketches. If so, that is a good example of what is wrong with this country (elitism and insularity) and the above is exactly how you come across IMO.

Cookie_Monster

Larbre34 wrote: »

Well done Patrick, you've just replicated the design of the junction that replaced the roundabout at Kill Avenue/Mounttown/The Farm, and we know what a complete pigs mickey that turned out to be.

Sat at that last night nearly banging my head off the wheel waiting for the light.

Drive thru killiney towers earlier to, was surprised by how acute the angles actually were... the cyclist on it however had no issues, traffic behind him did actually yield visably as he crossed an exit

patrickbrophy18

Larbre34 wrote: »

Well done Patrick, you've just replicated the design of the junction that replaced the roundabout at Kill Avenue/Mounttown/The Farm, and we know what a complete pigs mickey that turned out to be.

Traffic efficiency aside I think that location would look far worse without the landscaped roundabout at Killiney Towers and theres more to life than junction capacity and turning movements, as somebody said before if it was up to you we'd end up with a mini Los Angeles

No, if it was up to me, I would make sure that all suburbs can accommodate all types of traffic EASILY. Suburbs such as Dun Laoghaire, Sandycove, Dalkey and Killiney certainly do NOT fit this criteria. I don't think that making a road safer for pedestrians and cyclists should result in tailbacks nor do I think the current "solution:rolleyes:" is the only possible solution. It's a regressive and inconvenient method of making it safer for cyclists and pedestrians.

Don't get me wrong. I do think that the safety and prioritization of cyclists and pedestrians is imperative. However, in accommodating them, I would prefer to carry out improvements where inconvenience is not placed on other road users (truck, bus, ambulance and fire brigade drivers). This is why I suggest getting rid of the roundabout altogether by replacing it with a 5 armed crossroads. A more extreme solution is a double-decker roundabout. However, this would be expensive.:eek:

The existing "solution:rolleyes:" is crap, end of....

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong. I do think that the safety and prioritization of cyclists and pedestrians is imperative. However, in accommodating them, I would prefer to carry out improvements where inconvenience is not placed on other road users (truck, bus, ambulance and fire brigade drivers). This is why I suggest getting rid of the roundabout altogether by replacing it with a 5 armed crossroads.

I don't think many people are gullible enough to beleave you when you say that you think "safety and prioritization of cyclists and pedestrians is imperative."

Actually, you need to look up the world 'prioritization' as you seem confused as to what it means.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

A more extreme solution is a double-decker roundabout. However, this would be expensive.:eek:

As said repeatedly: Even if cost was not sn issue, such a solution would be completely unsuitable to the area.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The existing "solution:rolleyes:" is crap, end of....

It's more balanced for the area and keeps traffic moving more so than your idea would.

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

I don't think many people are gullible enough to beleave you when you say that you think "safety and prioritization of cyclists and pedestrians is imperative."

You can think what you want here. By the way, it is spelled "believe" not beleave. Anyway, the cross roads which I proposed would be signal controlled with each arm having 40 seconds, 20 seconds dedicated to motorized transport and onward traveling cyclists and 20 seconds dedicated to pedestrians and dismounted cyclists. Off peak and at night, this would become 60 seconds per arm with 30 seconds for pedestrians and dismounted cyclists and 30 seconds for motorists and onward traveling cyclists. Perhaps, some arms could be given more priority depending on the amount of traffic on them per day. For example, the new traffic light arrangement which replaced the Mounttown Roundabout appears to give more priority to Kill Avenue, Upper Glenageary Road and Mounttown Road Lower with smaller intervals at Oliver Plunkett Road and Highthorn Park. Either-way, the similar arrangement which I propose for Killiney Towers would ensure that each arm gives equal prioritization to all road users.

monument wrote: »

Actually, you need to look up the world 'prioritization' as you seem confused as to what it means.

I actually do know what 'prioritization' means. More crossing opportunities for pedestrians etc.

monument wrote: »

As said repeatedly: Even if cost was not sn issue, such a solution would be completely unsuitable to the area.

Would you please explain your logic here?

If cost wasn't an issue, a double-decker roundabout would separate cyclists and pedestrians from motorized transport. Ergo, cyclists and pedestrians would be free to do what they want on one level while motorists would go about their business on another level. In essence, it is the ultimate conflict-free solution. However, this would probably be 10 times the price. Hence, I would much prefer a crossroads similar to that at the former Mounttown Roundabout than the pseudo-Dutch solution that is currently in place.

monument wrote: »

It's more balanced for the area and keeps traffic moving more so than your idea would.

At least my idea doesn't leave long vehicles hemmed in by ridiculously tight junction boundaries.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

You can think what you want here. By the way, it is spelled "believe" not beleave.

Nearly sure a mod warned you about this before?

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Anyway, the cross roads which I proposed would be signal controlled...

It would mean less free moving traffic and likely a lot more congestion.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I actually do know what 'prioritization' means. More crossing opportunities for pedestrians etc.

When you prioritise something it gets prorirty over other things.

So if you want 'prioritization' for cyclists then you put cyclists ahead of other users.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Would you please explain your logic here?

If cost wasn't an issue, a double-decker roundabout would separate cyclists and pedestrians from motorized transport. Ergo, cyclists and pedestrians would be free to do what they want on one level while motorists would go about their business on another level. In essence, it is the ultimate conflict-free solution. However, this would probably be 10 times the price. Hence, I would much prefer a crossroads similar to that at the former Mounttown Roundabout than the pseudo-Dutch solution that is currently in place.

It's unsuited to the area because:

A) it would be overkill for the type of roads

unsuited to setting of the areas

C) the gradients and lack of space on the roads leading up to the junction would make it very hard if not impossable to allow for easy movement up or down for cyclists or people on foot.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

At least my idea doesn't leave long vehicles hemmed in by ridiculously tight junction boundaries.

Long vehicles can manage just fine and they do so on a daily bases.