Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

New traffic calming at junction King's Inns Street with Bolton Street

«13

Comments



  • It looks hideous.




  • Ok knee jerk reaction is this looks like a typical "false one way street" installation that has been used at the wrong end of a one-way street.

    The usual intent of such treatments would be to allow cyclist permeability past some traffic control focused mainly on motor traffic - so a banned left turn or a one-way/no-entry restriction that really only needs to apply to cars.

    So with regret, it looks to have been put in backwards, the cyclist bypass should be on the left to allow contraflow cyclists to exit onto the crossing arm while preventing cars from trying the same thing. A similar treatment might be expected at the other end of the street (actually more important there).




  • And if that is a secondary school on the corner, are we to understand that kids from the school don't already cycle contraflow up the street? Such as to get to the cycle lane we can see crossing the mouth of the junction?

    If that is the case, then this treatment places turning cars in direct conflict with the cyclists turning out - or else - requires the cyclists to cycle on the wrong side of the road.

    What is the opposite of a "gold star"?




  • Agreed on contra-flow -- it would fit on the street (segregated and mostly put behind a lane of parking maybe) -- even if it would require the removal of one of the turning lanes at the other end of the street (street view here).

    But the reasoning for it is as an entry treatment to the 30km/h and to improve the pedestrian environment. The junction used to be very wide (street view).

    With a lack of progress on contra-flow (or changing roads back to two-way!), it's an improvement for pedestrians and slowing the speeds of cars.




  • I'm not sure what advantage this offers over a normal junction to anybody, it just seems to be creating clutter.


  • Advertisement


  • Jehuty42 wrote: »
    I'm not sure what advantage this offers over a normal junction to anybody, it just seems to be creating clutter.

    It's main aims seems to be very clear that this is an entry point to the 30km/h zone and to give pedestrians walking along Bolton Street a better and safer crossing (the crossing is at the level of the footpaths, the space people have to walk across which is shared with traffic is narrowed, and traffic is slowed down).




  • monument wrote: »
    Agreed on contra-flow -- it would fit on the street (segregated and mostly put behind a lane of parking maybe) -- even if it would require the removal of one of the turning lanes at the other end of the street (street view here).

    But the reasoning for it is as an entry treatment to the 30km/h and to improve the pedestrian environment. The junction used to be very wide (street view).

    With a lack of progress on contra-flow (or changing roads back to two-way!), it's an improvement for pedestrians and slowing the speeds of cars.


    OK but if this is a 30km/h zone then it should be two-way for cyclists without needing any segregation. In fact in France it would probably be automatically two-way for cyclists.

    Also if the intent is to slow speeds and reduce through traffic why are any turning lanes needed at the other end?




  • I was turning right off bolton street the first time I came upon this monstrosity and nearly ended up driving through the cycle lane part before I realised what it was.

    the junction was too wide when trying to cross as a pedestrian but not sure it required the separate 'lane' for cyclists

    could be worse I suppose, it seems to have more road markings now compared to when I first encountered it




  • OK but if this is a 30km/h zone then it should be two-way for cyclists without needing any segregation. In fact in France it would probably be automatically two-way for cyclists.

    Also if the intent is to slow speeds and reduce through traffic why are any turning lanes needed at the other end?

    That's why I agree with you -- there should be contra-flow.

    And you're right, they could even keep the parking and something like this could easily work, or something without the lanes or just a contra-flow lane (there's not one single option):



    I'm not defending it, but I'd hazard a guess that the problem is the system is still obsessed with motor traffic flows, at lower or higher speeds, and this is made worse by all the car parks in the area.




  • Tails142 wrote: »
    I was turning right off bolton street the first time I came upon this monstrosity and nearly ended up driving through the cycle lane part before I realised what it was.

    I agree, it looks visually very confusing and it's possible drivers will not fully understand what is expected of them here.


  • Advertisement


  • monument wrote: »
    Agreed on contra-flow -- it would fit on the street (segregated and mostly put behind a lane of parking maybe) -- even if it would require the removal of one of the turning lanes at the other end of the street (street view here).

    Also even if there is an issue with providing contraflow access at the other end - they could still have made it contraflow for cycle traffic originating within the street. Such as the school?

    This would still have satisfied the requirement of providing an entry treatment and reducing exposure for crossing pedestrians.




  • The other negative aspect of this twittery related to the ending of any prospect of routing a Bus Service along Kings Inn St.

    Currently Bolton St,King St and Smithfield itself are in a Bermuda Triangle when it comes to Bus Services....

    With the pre-existing narrowing along Capel St and the seeming unwillingness of DCC the QBN office and Dublin Bus themselves to actually do a small census to reveal the dense population who continue to be ignored with regard to a public transport service.

    There are a shed-full of options and opportunities for New Termini and new routings to deliver some service to this forgotten part of Dublin City......:eek:


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)





  • how are you supposed to get a truck down there without wrecking the kerbs?




  • AlekSmart wrote: »
    The other negative aspect of this twittery related to the ending of any prospect of routing a Bus Service along Kings Inn St....

    Luas BXD planned for the next street over has already done that.

    But also you can't stop all installations of traffic calming (or traffic or cycle lanes, parking, Dublin Bike stands, etc etc) on any street just because a bus route could one undefined day use the street.

    Jehuty42 wrote: »
    I agree, it looks visually very confusing and it's possible drivers will not fully understand what is expected of them here.

    It's fairly simple:

    On the road: An arrow painted for cars to enter, and bicycle for where bicycles enter.

    On the yellow signs: Bicycle for bicycle bicycles go, and arrows for everything else.

    Tails142 wrote: »
    the junction was too wide when trying to cross as a pedestrian but not sure it required the separate 'lane' for cyclists

    It's to avoid the increased level of conflict between cyclists and motorists caused by a pinch point.

    how are you supposed to get a truck down there without wrecking the kerbs?

    Does somebody need to get a truck down there?




  • monument wrote: »
    how are you supposed to get a truck down there without wrecking the kerbs?

    Does somebody need to get a truck down there?

    Yes. Cars are brought in to DIT Bolton Street through the King Inn entrance for study by mechanical engineering students, usually on the back of a truck. There are no possible alternative entrances, as the mech workshop is on the ground floor through the Kings Inn entrance.
    Other hefty things I've seen brought in through that entrance include a large batch of sheet metal, and a multiple pallets of paper, neither of which have alternate ways, due to the stairs at the Bolton Street entrance.




  • Hmm... I attend DIT Bolton St so I'll check this out tomorrow. I'd heard about it but haven't actually seen it myself. Off the top of my head, King's Inn St isn't really used by cyclists. There's a Dublin Bikes stand at Capel/Bolton so the contraflow lane there is used more than Kings Inn. I don't think this new "traffic calming" (how many cars are going to get confused here I wonder...) exercise will entice cyclists.

    Walking up and down here every day, I can't say I've noticed a need for traffic calming. Somebody obviously thought there was a need for it, though; a less ugly and cluttersome way of doing it would have been to put a contraflow bike-lane inside the parked cars, and reduce the width of the driveable area.

    I'll reserve judgment on it until tomorrow. Oh, and well done Dublin City Council for removing a grand total of THREE car-spaces in the name of traffic calming.




  • monument wrote: »
    Luas BXD planned for the next street over has already done that.

    The word "Planned" is highly relevant here I suspect.

    But also you can't stop all installations of traffic calming (or traffic or cycle lanes, parking, Dublin Bike stands, etc etc) on any street just because a bus route could one undefined day use the street.

    Not for a second suggesting it should,however there is an issue with one of the few densely populated residential areas of the City Centre having NO Bus Service whilst the likes of Merrion Square has several Termini

    It's fairly simple:

    On the road: An arrow painted for cars to enter, and bicycle for where bicycles enter.

    Quite a substantial pothole left there too I note...."Pour encourager les autres" perhaps ?

    On the yellow signs: Bicycle for bicycle bicycles go, and arrows for everything else.

    I wonder how long the Yellow Signs will remain erect..?


    It's to avoid the increased level of conflict between cyclists and motorists caused by a pinch point.

    Having walked,driven....and cycled (:eek:) past and along the street over the past 40 years I'll accept that conflict statement,with the caveat that I've never actually witnessed an example of it ;)



    Does somebody need to get a truck down there?

    If it got there,a truck brought it...;)

    :)


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)





  • Aard wrote: »
    Hmm... I attend DIT Bolton St so I'll check this out tomorrow. I'd heard about it but haven't actually seen it myself. Off the top of my head, King's Inn St isn't really used by cyclists. There's a Dublin Bikes stand at Capel/Bolton so the contraflow lane there is used more than Kings Inn. I don't think this new "traffic calming" (how many cars are going to get confused here I wonder...) exercise will entice cyclists.

    Walking up and down here every day, I can't say I've noticed a need for traffic calming. Somebody obviously thought there was a need for it, though; a less ugly and cluttersome way of doing it would have been to put a contraflow bike-lane inside the parked cars, and reduce the width of the driveable area.

    I'll reserve judgment on it until tomorrow. Oh, and well done Dublin City Council for removing a grand total of THREE car-spaces in the name of traffic calming.

    Valid points Aard.

    I would'nt worry about those three lost spaces,I should imagine there's replacements already marked out...perhaps in the Kings Inn's ( :D)

    On the broader topic of the Car Parking issue,perhaps an improved Bus Service along or to Bolton St/King St might have provided some small incentive for a few of the Car Drivers to try an alternative,even occasionally ?

    It all just smacks of lost opportunity to me !


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)





  • Aard wrote: »
    I don't think this new "traffic calming" (how many cars are going to get confused here I wonder...) exercise will entice cyclists.

    One improved street is not going to attract cyclists but as part of a policy of generally making roads safer for cycling, it's fine. We can't complain that there are no facilities and then attack each one when it's built because it's not enough.




  • True, Mark. I'm sure this is just a pilot of sorts, and they wanted to use it on a street that wasn't particularly important to the flow of cars and bikes alike.


  • Advertisement


  • markpb wrote: »
    One improved street is not going to attract cyclists but as part of a policy of generally making roads safer for cycling, it's fine. We can't complain that there are no facilities and then attack each one when it's built because it's not enough.

    Sorry but I disagree. Among the cycle campaigning community the complaint is not so much about "lack" of facilities but that what is being put in actually makes things worse. The "complaint" quite often is "please stop building facilities when you quite clearly have no idea what you are doing".

    In this case, from what I can see, this "facility" may make things worse for some cyclists.

    Edit: Also in this case it is not like we are talking about some unknown "rocket science" I can pull out a suggested design for such an entry treatment dating back to at least 1996 - thats just from memory.




  • Is there a history of accidents here or something?




  • BostonB wrote: »
    Is there a history of accidents here or something?

    There's a similar installation at the junction of Dorset St & Frederick St North so it looks (to me) like they're narrowing the entrances to the 30kph cordon so make it more obvious that you're entering that area.




  • BostonB wrote: »
    Is there a history of accidents here or something?

    Why does there have to be a history of accidents for traffic calming?




  • monument wrote: »
    Why does there have to be a history of accidents for traffic calming?

    Because they've a habit of spending thousands of tax payers money on things that achieve absolutely nothing.




  • BostonB wrote: »
    Because they've a habit of spending thousands of tax payers money on things that achieve absolutely nothing.

    In this case, this seems to achieve what it set out:
    • Provide a vastly improved crossing experiences for pedestrians -- especially children or those with children, with prams, older people and those with disabilities
    • Slow traffic coming into the 30km/h / near the crossing / at the school
    • Make it clear that you are entering the 30km/h zone
    • And it has done this with a bypass for cyclists to avoid any extra conflicts




  • Do they have any metrics of before and after to know they've achieved this.




  • Right. I took a look today. No cyclists whatsoever used it, while in the time I was there about 15 cars used it. Most cars got the gist of things, but a few nearly drove down the cycle lane and only realised at the last second that they were making a mistake. One car blocked southbound traffic on Bolton St for about ten seconds while he negotiated the junction. I also noticed that the drivers sped up on the other side of the "traffic calming" entry. I'd imagine they were frustrated with the slowness of the junction that they felt like 'making up time' on the other side. IMO this defeats the purpose of things a bit.

    Certainly, it's now easier for pedestrians to cross the road here. That's a plus. I have no idea about cyclists, but I'd imagine that not many would use King's Inn St as it doesn't exactly go anywhere. Capel St is still more useful (saw a few people cycling down there today).

    And let's face it, it's not exactly pretty. The gaudy neon-yellow signs are a bit much.

    On the whole I'm a bit whatever about it. It's definitely a plus for pedestrians, I'll give it that. I don't think it will slow drivers down, except at the junction (which in fairness is probably the most important place to slow them down). But it's possible to slow drivers using other methods, like reducing the curve radius, or even just putting in the ramp by itself. More expensive ways would include narrowing the street and broadening the footpath, or removing a few parking spaces here and there and putting in some trees in their place.




  • The placing of a speed ramp for cyclists seems bizarre and dangerous, as the actual camber will change for a cyclist taking the corner; plus the bike parking right beside the bike lane will result in bikes encroaching on the lane


  • Advertisement


  • The placing of a speed ramp for cyclists seems bizarre and dangerous, as the actual camber will change for a cyclist taking the corner; plus the bike parking right beside the bike lane will result in bikes encroaching on the lane

    I don't think there is any problem for cyclists using it.

    It's not really a speed ramp, even if it shares some of the effects of speed bumps -- it's a pedestrian table which makes cars and cyclists come to the pedestrian level rather than the usually way of bring pedestrians up and down.

    And it seems unlikely that bikes on the racks would encroach on the lane unless they were horrendously parked and the lane is wide compared to the average cycle lane.

    Aard wrote: »
    Right. I took a look today. No cyclists whatsoever used it, while in the time I was there about 15 cars used it. Most cars got the gist of things, but a few nearly drove down the cycle lane and only realised at the last second that they were making a mistake. One car blocked southbound traffic on Bolton St for about ten seconds while he negotiated the junction. I also noticed that the drivers sped up on the other side of the "traffic calming" entry. I'd imagine they were frustrated with the slowness of the junction that they felt like 'making up time' on the other side. IMO this defeats the purpose of things a bit.

    It's fairly effective still with reducing speed given it slows traffic down on [a] the junction and the 'main' road.

    Aard wrote: »
    Certainly, it's now easier for pedestrians to cross the road here. That's a plus. I have no idea about cyclists, but I'd imagine that not many would use King's Inn St as it doesn't exactly go anywhere. Capel St is still more useful (saw a few people cycling down there today).

    Ultimately it is mainly for pedestrians -- cyclists are just a consideration, which is unusual.
    Aard wrote: »
    ...But it's possible to slow drivers using other methods, like reducing the curve radius, or even just putting in the ramp by itself. More expensive ways would include narrowing the street and broadening the footpath, or removing a few parking spaces here and there and putting in some trees in their place.

    What is in place now uses a mix of those in a key position and without costing what redoing the whole street would.


Advertisement