Moneenageisha Traffic Lights - How bad are they?

PomBear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1CPNT2cEw8

Thoughts?

snubbleste

I'd like to see it from a pedestrian point of view and a cyclist point of view

galah

I'd like to see the comparison Moneenageesha when it was a roundabout to the lights. While I don't agree with converting all the roundabouts to traffic lights, I personally think that the Moneenageesha one isnt' actually bad - compared to way back, when you had crazy tailbacks, it's now actually moving much better...

Most of the holdups at that junction are due to people entering the junction when it's not cleared - thus blocking flow for motorists from the other directions, creating problems that way. But no amount of signals will solve the problem of idiot drivers...

I also do not agree with stopping traffic on ALL 4 sides just for pedestrians. why can't they introduce a sensible pedestrian light that goes green when the 'car' lights for the same direction go green? (yes, I realise that this may cause problems for pedestrians when cars want to turn left - but this works on the continent, and motorists can be usually be trained to watch out for pedestrians...).

meh.

fago

Moneenageisha doesn't have the 4 way red for pedestrians.

There is always traffic flowing and partial greens for pedestrians where they can cross to the central median typically and wait for the next cycle of pedestrian green to complete the crossing.

galah

really? ok, fair enough then - I was always under the impression that it stopped all four directions for pedestrians, but stand corrected.

WesternNight

Just to point out that Cemetery Cross roundabout, with it's through time of 10 seconds by your calculations, is that way (as far as I can see) because of the Moneenageisha lights. Although you were waiting 3 minute and some odd seconds to get through the lights, traffic had a bit of time to clear ahead of you so there's no longer the huge tailbacks that used to go from town all the way out the Dublin road. Do you remember them? They were fun..

Also, you can't really compare random other roundabouts to those lights. You'd have to measure the time with the roundabout (with same level of traffic) and then compare to the lights..

Mrs OBumble

WesternNight wrote: »

Just to point out that Cemetery Cross roundabout, with it's through time of 10 seconds by your calculations, is that way (as far as I can see) because of the Moneenageisha lights. Although you were waiting 3 minute and some odd seconds to get through the lights, traffic had a bit of time to clear ahead of you so there's no longer the huge tailbacks that used to go from town all the way out the Dublin road. Do you remember them? They were fun..

Also, you can't really compare random other roundabouts to those lights. You'd have to measure the time with the roundabout (with same level of traffic) and then compare to the lights..

Exactly.

The trip down Wellpark at 5:45pm in the afternoon now is a breeze. In 2007/8, before the roundabout, it was a nightmare.

Having a roundabout with no pedestrian crossings right beside a secondary school was mad.

4zn76tysfajdxp

I never had to drive through those lights during rush hour or anything but, as a pedestrian, they're a godsend. That place used to be seriously dangerous until the pedestrian crossings were installed.

GalwayGaillimh

There should be a tunnel or a footbridge at the lights at moneen for pedestrians.
Every effort to keep the traffic flowing should be made.
I can see the new lights that replace the old roundabouts making a bad situation diabolical untill the command HQ for the lights goes live then everyone will realise that lights and a command centre are not the answer either.
I would imagine a congestion charge like London would be the way forward to encourage the use of public transport.

yer man!

I think also that these lights could be sequenced better. For instance if they allowed Dublin road traffic heading into town go left and straight on while traffic from Joyce roundabout was allowed go straight on and left simultaneously. They need to get rid of the right turns from these two roads as this doesn't allow two arms of the junction move at the same time during a cycle plus I rarely see people turning right from either of these roads. By doing this you would have 3 cycles instead of the current 4 cycles which takes ages. Also these lights are supposed to be intelligent and self learning but you can plainly see they go through a set sequence of cycles, the only intelligent thing it does is when you travel through it at about 4 AM it knows your there and it'll give you a green if nobody else is around. I'm not a highway engineer, i'm just going by observations.

All i know is if we had a bypass i wouldn't need to enter the city......

the untitled user

I would like to point out the OP's video compares inbound traffic with outbound traffic... i.e. the comparison is not particularly helpful.

Cemetry cross is always lighter anyway because there are traffic lights approaching it from every direction, so the traffic approaching it doesn't flow as much as the traffic hitting moneenageisha.

Now, try getting on the Ballybrit roundabout from the industrial estate at 5.30, 6pm in the evening. Traffic is 'flowing' outbound meaning in a queue about a third the length of the one hitting moneenageisha can take as long to get through.

Or the roundabout at the back of the hospital in westside at 6pm on a weekday. Or the Headford road roundabout going outbound in the morning.

The only solution is to get people off their arses and onto their feet and bikes. Traffic lights facilitate this. On a bike it's only 25-30mins from Knocknacarra to Ballybrit during peak hours. That's quicker than a car. If you want to get anywhere on time in Galway your better off cycling.

antoobrien

From the pedestrian POV I hate the multi part lights they have here with a passion, making me wait when I could be across the road 2 minutes ago.

From the wheeled user pov I never had problems with this one when it was RAB, but now it's a plain disaster. Now it takes 5 minutes to get through unless you're lucky and theres no traffic buildup allowing you to hit the green light first time.

I walked from Mervue into town a few weeks ago on a Saturday afternoon and noted the times taken to get through the lights (i.e. hung around at the haunted house for 5 minutes). There was no traffic coming from Cemetery Cross and the Wellpark traffic was backed up past the service entrance to the retail park. It took 5 minutes for that traffic to get through. I was on the bus home later, it took 10 minutes to get from the gate of the Sportsground to the G hotel (I'd walk that quicker).

I remember the cause of the traffic problems here being the fact that people didn't leave room for vehicles to enter the RAB when traffic backed up - this could have been solved by policing (something the guards don't seem to want to do because it's far sexier to fine people for doing 65km/k on the Monivea road, which is better than large stretches of the R446/old N6).

Needless to say when I have a choice in the matter I avoid this junction like the plague since the lights have gone in.

buzz11

Brilliant video and editing/music is great.

I would imagine a congestion charge like London would be the way forward to encourage the use of public transport

Do you think Galway's public transport is fit-for-purpose? I've tried it as an alternative to my car and its simply not a runner.

Iwannahurl

buzz11 wrote: »

Brilliant video and editing/music is great.

Do you think Galway's public transport is fit-for-purpose? I've tried it as an alternative to my car and its simply not a runner.

I have to agree that the video is technically excellent (though I had the sound off so I can't comment on the music!).

However, it clearly provides only a limited perspective. Additionally, its chosen comparisons are skewed, IMO. I would love to see a video response from the POV of pedestrians, cyclists, bus users, children, disabled people, senior citizens etc.

Many things in Galway City's traffic and transportation environment are not fit for purpose. The numerous roundabouts, for example, have long been a serious problem for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. A close look at the above video shows the conditions faced by pedestrians on the Joyce roundabout, for example (see 01:50).

The Council were warned about this and other unsustainable practices a decade ago or more and chose anyway to relentlessly pursue policies that inevitably and inexorably led to the traffic nightmare we have now.

Finally, traffic management and travel demand management are high on the agenda. Measures to facilitate sustainable modes of travel are an essential part of that strategy, and therefore the ripping out of those lousy roundabouts is, I sincerely hope, a step in the right direction.

KevR

Hopefully someone will record the time it takes to get through the Briarhill roundabout from each direction at both morning and evening rush hour.

Any time I pass through Briarhill in the mornings (08:00ish), there is a tailback all the way to the Galway Clinic roundabout and another tailback on the motorway. I assume that there is also a tailback coming from the airport direction. Luckily for me, I'm almost always going in the opposite direction to the jams at peak times so I don't get caught in it.

On a few occasions where I would be travelling in the same direction as the majority (Eastbound in the evenings), it took a very long time to get through the roundabout on each occasion.

I just can't imagine how lights together with the new traffic management centre could be worse at peak times. It will probably improve flow at peak times but it will still be widely criticised because people will hate getting held up for a couple off mins going through the junction off-peak.

I still think Briarhill is an ideal candidate for a flyover. There is no need for traffic continuing along the N6 to have to pass through a roundabout or lights there.

Iwannahurl

AFAIK, set criteria need to be met before grade separation at such junctions is warranted. Presumably land take and construction costs are important factors. Also, what effect would the implications of grade separation on the level of service for non car users?

As for evaluating the benefits of newly signalised junctions such as Moneenageisha, IMO it is necessary to take a multidimensional approach. You'd need to factor in any delays and time savings for all traffic streams in all directions at different times, as well as accounting for the effects on travel modes other than the private car.

what_traffic

KevR wrote: »

I still think Briarhill is an ideal candidate for a flyover. There is no need for traffic continuing along the N6 to have to pass through a roundabout or lights there.

Dont believe there is enough room for this seeing as they(City Council/Cllr's) allowed buildings to be constructed on the roundabout perimeter(i.e Clayton, KFC and Western Motors)It could have been initially constructed like this.

KevR

what_traffic wrote: »

Dont believe there is enough room for this seeing as they(City Council/Cllr's) allowed buildings to be constructed on the roundabout perimeter(i.e Clayton, KFC and Western Motors)It could have been initially constructed like this.

I don't think any extra land would be required. The DCs have a wide central reservation.

Greaney

The only time the Moneen junction worked a treat was when, during works, there was only a bollard in the middle of the road. All of a sudden, folk went around it slowly, giving way slightly, but the whole thing kept moving!! It was remarkable, a totally different mind set for the users and I'm not joking when I say, that as a system, it's worth exploring.

I believe that other cities have tried this with great results...

Cities without traffic signs

antoobrien

Greaney wrote: »

Cities without traffic signs

The link seems to be broken here's the working one: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html

Article text

European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs

Are streets without traffic signs conceivable? Seven cities and regions in Europe are giving it a try -- with good results.

"We reject every form of legislation," the Russian aristocrat and "father of anarchism" Mikhail Bakunin once thundered. The czar banished him to Siberia. But now it seems his ideas are being rediscovered.

European traffic planners are dreaming of streets free of rules and directives. They want drivers and pedestrians to interact in a free and humane way, as brethren -- by means of friendly gestures, nods of the head and eye contact, without the harassment of prohibitions, restrictions and warning signs.

A project implemented by the European Union is currently seeing seven cities and regions clear-cutting their forest of traffic signs. Ejby, in Denmark, is participating in the experiment, as are Ipswich in England and the Belgian town of Ostende.

The utopia has already become a reality in Makkinga, in the Dutch province of Western Frisia. A sign by the entrance to the small town (population 1,000) reads "Verkeersbordvrij" -- "free of traffic signs." Cars bumble unhurriedly over precision-trimmed granite cobblestones. Stop signs and direction signs are nowhere to be seen. There are neither parking meters nor stopping restrictions. There aren't even any lines painted on the streets.

"The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We're losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior," says Dutch traffic guru Hans Monderman, one of the project's co-founders. "The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles."

Monderman could be on to something. Germany has 648 valid traffic symbols. The inner cities are crowded with a colorful thicket of metal signs. Don't park over here, watch out for passing deer over there, make sure you don't skid. The forest of signs is growing ever denser. Some 20 million traffic signs have already been set up all over the country.

Psychologists have long revealed the senselessness of such exaggerated regulation. About 70 percent of traffic signs are ignored by drivers. What's more, the glut of prohibitions is tantamount to treating the driver like a child and it also foments resentment. He may stop in front of the crosswalk, but that only makes him feel justified in preventing pedestrians from crossing the street on every other occasion. Every traffic light baits him with the promise of making it over the crossing while the light is still yellow.

"Unsafe is safe"

The result is that drivers find themselves enclosed by a corset of prescriptions, so that they develop a kind of tunnel vision: They're constantly in search of their own advantage, and their good manners go out the window.

The new traffic model's advocates believe the only way out of this vicious circle is to give drivers more liberty and encourage them to take responsibility for themselves. They demand streets like those during the Middle Ages, when horse-drawn chariots, handcarts and people scurried about in a completely unregulated fashion. The new model's proponents envision today's drivers and pedestrians blending into a colorful and peaceful traffic stream.

It may sound like chaos, but it's only the lesson drawn from one of the insights of traffic psychology: Drivers will force the accelerator down ruthlessly only in situations where everything has been fully regulated. Where the situation is unclear, they're forced to drive more carefully and cautiously.

Indeed, "Unsafe is safe" was the motto of a conference where proponents of the new roadside philosophy met in Frankfurt in mid-October.

True, many of them aren't convinced of the new approach. "German drivers are used to rules," says Michael Schreckenberg of Duisburg University. If clear directives are abandoned, domestic rush-hour traffic will turn into an Oriental-style bazaar, he warns. He believes the new vision of drivers and pedestrians interacting in a cozy, relaxed way will work, at best, only for small towns.

But one German borough is already daring to take the step into lawlessness. The town of Bohmte in Lower Saxony has 13,500 inhabitants. It's traversed by a country road and a main road. Cars approach speedily, delivery trucks stop to unload their cargo and pedestrians scurry by on elevated sidewalks.

The road will be re-furbished in early 2007, using EU funds. "The sidewalks are going to go, and the asphalt too. Everything will be covered in cobblestones," Klaus Goedejohann, the mayor, explains. "We're getting rid of the division between cars and pedestrians."

The plans derive inspiration and motivation from a large-scale experiment in the town of Drachten in the Netherlands, which has 45,000 inhabitants. There, cars have already been driving over red natural stone for years. Cyclists dutifully raise their arm when they want to make a turn, and drivers communicate by hand signs, nods and waving.

"More than half of our signs have already been scrapped," says traffic planner Koop Kerkstra. "Only two out of our original 18 traffic light crossings are left, and we've converted them to roundabouts." Now traffic is regulated by only two rules in Drachten: "Yield to the right" and "Get in someone's way and you'll be towed."

Strange as it may seem, the number of accidents has declined dramatically. Experts from Argentina and the United States have visited Drachten. Even London has expressed an interest in this new example of automobile anarchy. And the model is being tested in the British capital's Kensington neighborhood.

galwaycyclist

Now traffic is regulated by only two rules in Drachten: "Yield to the right" and "Get in someone's way and you'll be towed."

This is something that people from these islands and the US don't necessarily understand when looking at traffic in mainland Europe.

If there are no road signs then traffic entering a road from a side road has priority over traffic coming on the same side of the crossing road. So since they drive on the right its "Yield to the right".

It means that drivers must drive at a speed that will allow them to stop and let someone else out if they want to come onto the road. We don't have any equivalent legislation here - it would be "yield to the left" for us. We assume that traffic on the "major" road has priority.

A Dutch town without signs is not unregulated its just that the regulation is not visible to us.

I would do away with all the fencing at the lights - it doesn't do much to stop school kids getting off the bus at the Huntsman and then cutting across traffic.

They are a joke and a disgrace. Should be changed back to a roundabout immediately and don't get me stated on the plans to change other roundabouts to lights, the city is going to be a mess.

what_traffic

Deleted User wrote: »

I would do away with all the fencing at the lights

Agree + they are dangerous for cyclists.

what_traffic

KevR wrote: »

I don't think any extra land would be required. The DCs have a wide central reservation.

Do you know of an example that had a similar footprint where they where able to convert to this? Can only guess would be far more expensive and take longer to build.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

Do you know of an example that had a similar footprint where they where able to convert to this? Can only guess would be far more expensive and take longer to build.

N4 crossroads in Lucan was tighter than Ballybrit (where it's proposed). Now I don't think we need to go to 3 lanes & hard shoulder but it shows what's possible.

IIRC the big complaint about Ballybrit is the amount of "crossing traffic" from the Monivea rd and traffic exiting Parkmore - the same problem as existed because of the set of lights that this bridge has replaced.

what_traffic

antoobrien wrote: »

N4 crossroads in Lucan was tighter than Ballybrit (where it's proposed). Now I don't think we need to go to 3 lanes & hard shoulder but it shows what's possible.

IIRC the big complaint about Ballybrit is the amount of "crossing traffic" from the Monivea rd and traffic exiting Parkmore - the same problem as existed because of the set of lights that this bridge has replaced.

I was thinking of this exact scheme when posting my previous post - but is it really a good example? The footprint is substantial here. I guess the main thing is that it is a very expensive conversion to do. Do you know how much did the Lucan job cost?

Greaney

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This is something that people from these islands and the US don't necessarily understand when looking at traffic in mainland Europe.

If there are no road signs then traffic entering a road from a side road has priority over traffic coming on the same side of the crossing road. So since they drive on the right its "Yield to the right".

It means that drivers must drive at a speed that will allow them to stop and let someone else out if they want to come onto the road. We don't have any equivalent legislation here - it would be "yield to the left" for us. We assume that traffic on the "major" road has priority.

A Dutch town without signs is not unregulated its just that the regulation is not visible to us.

We have a similar 'rule of the road' regarding a cross road where all roads are of equal importance, we also yeild to the right (like on a roundabout). Our rules are similar to the UK and it worked a treat in Epswich!! It worked with a bollard and a load of clueless drivers on Moneen for about a fortnight. And finally, most folk were pretty impressed with how smoothly the traffic moved through the junction at the court house when the lights were left broken for about 10 days, a couple of years ago. Heaps of people I know expressed how sorry they were when they were fixed and suggested they should have stayed broken.

We Irish could be pretty considerate drivers when it's put to us:D

galwaycyclist

Greaney wrote: »

We have a similar 'rule of the road' regarding a cross road where all roads are of equal importance, we also yeild to the right (like on a roundabout). Our rules are similar to the UK and it worked a treat in Epswich!! It worked with a bollard and a load of clueless drivers on Moneen for about a fortnight. And finally, most folk were pretty impressed with how smoothly the traffic moved through the junction at the court house when the lights were left broken for about 10 days, a couple of years ago. Heaps of people I know expressed how sorry they were when they were fixed and suggested they should have stayed broken.

We Irish could be pretty considerate drivers when it's put to us:D

Yep we can. The problem is that we have traffic engineers who actively encourage aggressive driving behaviour. To make a " lightless" situation like the courthouse work for everybody you either need to put in zebra crossings or else repave it something like shop street (no footpaths) and encourage/enforce lower speeds.

A lot could be done with some of the roundabouts by just adding zebra crossings with the flashing yellow beacons.

The problem is that we have engineers who seem to hate the idea of letting people go abouf their lawful daily business on foot and seem to hate the idea of just letting people cross the road at the places where they need to cross the road.

thesandeman

Strangly enough I regularly cross opposite the Western Hotel (just before the lights which very few people use) and I would guess at least 30% of drivers (excluding taxis) either wave me across or slow down whereas if Im trying to cross at Richardsons Corner the cars speed up on Amber so there may be something to that argument.
I also find that a wave of thanks to the driver puts a happy look on their face.

As regards Zebras I found cars stopped easier when they were outside Richardsons and I noticed the same thing in Killkenny where there are/were three sets on John St. The cars just automatically slow and stop as people were crossing.

Edit: meant to quote the 'sign free' post.

antoobrien

what_traffic wrote: »

I was thinking of this exact scheme when posting my previous post - but is it really a good example? The footprint is substantial here. I guess the main thing is that it is a very expensive conversion to do.

Agreed the footprint is substantial - but iirc its not much bigger than it used to be and there is plenty of space in Briarhill. The question I'd have is do we need the same scale of works & how much future proofing do we build in for potential traffic increases, bus lanes, gluas, new inter city train routes, flying cars etc.

what_traffic wrote: »

Do you know how much did the Lucan job cost?

It was part of the scheme to upgrade the N4 between the M4 & M50 interchange, so I don't know. If I had project figures it'd be hard to guestimate it because they changed the road from D2 to D3 as part of the project.

Mrs OBumble

thesandeman wrote: »

Strangly enough I regularly cross opposite the Western Hotel (just before the lights which very few people use) and I would guess at least 30% of drivers (excluding taxis) either wave me across or slow down....

Did you know that those who are waving are breaking the law? Apparently it's called "unauthorised direction of traffic" - and if someone does it during a driving test, it's an automatic fail.


While I can appreciate the "control free" approaches work well in limited situations, for short times, I just cannot see them being successfully applied to larger roads or on an on-going basis, because of the increased journey time needed if every intersection is like that.

Yes, ye can be considerate drivers in one-off situations. I'm just not sure you can do it all the time!

Iwannahurl

It's a bizarre notion that pedestrians and cyclists might depend on the kindness of strangers in motorised vehicles to let them use the roads in safety and comfort.

However, if charity is to replace the Rules of the Road, traffic legislation, transportation policy and a proper level of service for non car users, then I suggest that we up-end the current hierarchy: motorists to proceed according to the whim of pedestrians, cyclists and bus users.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

then I suggest that we up-end the current hierarchy: motorists to proceed according to the whim of pedestrians, cyclists and bus users.

that IS the way the current system works - after all motorists are not allowed plow through pedestrians or cyclists.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

that IS the way the current system works - after all motorists are not allowed plow through pedestrians or cyclists.

Er no, actually. There's the small matter of the law to factor in.

There are other factors also, such as traffic management and engineering practices, declared and undeclared transportation policies, traffic culture etc.

Waving at other road users sounds like an Irish solution to an Irish problem, IMO. Hans Monderman was Dutch, and he developed his concepts within that country's legal, social, traffic management and urban design frameworks.

Many of us can't even obey simple traffic laws in this country, such as those relating to parking, so I wouldn't be confident that arm-waving is a good basis for future transport planning.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Many of us can't even obey simple traffic laws in this country, such as those relating to parking, so I wouldn't be confident that arm-waving is a good basis for future transport planning.

Er, what about the ones controlling the use of pedestrian lights - you know the one that says you're supposed to wait for the green man?

what_traffic

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's a bizarre notion that pedestrians and cyclists might depend on the kindness of strangers in motorised vehicles to let them use the roads in safety and comfort.

I think "thesandeman" observations are very useful here. (noting that this traffic island can be promblematic for cyclists if they dont take the lane - pinch point)
Perhaps it does show a willingness that we can also adopt to a Hans Monderman world? Would agree with you we would need to change the laws first

what_traffic

JustMary wrote: »

While I can appreciate the "control free" approaches work well in limited situations, for short times, I just cannot see them being successfully applied to larger roads

Agree - would not work on a arterial road but in Galway's medival city centre it could work? As Iwannahurl says - would need to change the laws first though.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Er, what about the ones controlling the use of pedestrian lights - you know the one that says you're supposed to wait for the green man?

You are referring to traffic lights, which are legislated for.

They operate on a well-recognised system of green, amber and red lights, not a pop-up sign saying "I'd like to cross the road, Mr Motorist, if it pleases you".

It's illegal to break a red light. It's not illegal to ignore a pedestrian who's waiting at an uncontrolled crossing.

That's the key difference between people's whims and a legal-infrastructural framework that facilitates pedestrians, which is the point I was making following this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75035754&postcount=32

Iwannahurl

what_traffic wrote: »

I think "thesandeman" observations are very useful here. (noting that this traffic island can be promblematic for cyclists if they dont take the lane - pinch point)
Perhaps it does show a willingness that we can also adopt to a Hans Monderman world? Would agree with you we would need to change the laws first

I'm sceptical.

Is it likely that Irish motorists would successfully embrace Monderman's principles when so many of them can't or won't even embrace the concept of our existing road traffic laws? Speeding, mobile phones, dangerous overtaking, obnoxious parking -- the list is seemingly endless, the enforcement definitely finite.

ScumLord

JustMary wrote: »

Did you know that those who are waving are breaking the law? Apparently it's called "unauthorised direction of traffic" - and if someone does it during a driving test, it's an automatic fail.

Does that mean if I start waving out people doing the driving test at all sorts of junctions they'd probably fail the test?

Mrs OBumble

ScumLord wrote: »

Does that mean if I start waving out people doing the driving test at all sorts of junctions they'd probably fail the test?

Only if they wave back!