Advertisement
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Dutch bicycle roundabout above road junction

«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,852 ✭✭✭ SeanW


    Nice :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 BluntGuy


    That's really cool. Thanks for the share.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,855 ✭✭✭✭ Alun


    I used to live very close to there :) There's one on the same road, nearer to Veldohoven, where the cycle paths go under the roundabout. It's been there for about 15 years I reckon.

    http://goo.gl/maps/avjUi


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 89,766 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Capt'n Midnight


    Alun wrote: »
    I used to live very close to there :) There's one on the same road, nearer to Veldohoven, where the cycle paths go under the roundabout. It's been there for about 15 years I reckon.

    http://goo.gl/maps/avjUi
    I remember the underpass on the roundabout in Ballymun. And how scary it seemed with the short lines of sight.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,855 ✭✭✭✭ Alun


    Veldhoven <> Ballymun :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,852 ✭✭✭ SeanW


    Couple of questions:
    1. It looks like there are cars/vans on the new upper level. What's going on there?
    2. How is the main junction now controlled?

    Edit: it looks like its still under construction in that pic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,855 ✭✭✭✭ Alun


    SeanW wrote: »
    It looks like there are cars/vans on the new upper level. What's going on there?
    I think that photo was taken before it was fully operational, I guess the vans belonged to workmen who were still working on it.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 89,766 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Capt'n Midnight


    SeanW wrote: »
    Couple of questions:
    1. It looks like there are cars/vans on the new upper level. What's going on there?
    2. How is the main junction now controlled?

    Edit: it looks like its still under construction in that pic.
    Look at the videos in the original post ;)


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 13,991 Mod ✭✭✭✭ monument


    A good blog post follow up on this from a related Dutch cycling blog: The importance of the mundane.

    Here's were the junction is on Google Maps -- it used to be a roundabout.

    Also note how the BRT did and still does bypass the junction.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 Irish and Proud


    What's funny is that we had something like that in Ballymun - a traffic roundabout over pedestrian/cycle infrastructure - there were even ramps leading down from the roads like slip-roads - for pedestrians/cyclists that is:

    8418200a1720762849b191512460l.jpg

    I have driven the Ballymun Road earlier this year and what has replaced the roundabout is the most dangerous road design I've ever seen - erratic parked cars (could come out any time) on the side of a 6 lane DC with several pedestrians trying to cross - some jaywalking (like I do - I hate getting held up for too long on foot). The only thing for it now IMO is a traffic underpass with just local traffic and buses etc on top - the surface road could be reduced to 4 lanes while the paths could be widened.

    In general, we should be really be following (or surpassing) the Dutch instead of the latest gombeen pseudo-Dutch solutions in the form of Killiney Towers Roundabout etc. In my mind, if you want to see something close to what's Dutch, then pay a visit to the Wicklow Town Relief Road - the cycle tracks there are 2 way on both sides and are separated from the road by a grass verge - even at the roundabouts AFAIK. See ground level view (thanks to nordydan) of the Wicklow Town Relief Road. In short, if we're going to take cycling seriously, then we have to spend the dosh - like it or not.

    Turning the clock back on road design (taking out left lanes, left slips etc) is not the solution - What we need are sophisticated road designs (that would even surpass the Dutch) with the pedestrian, cyclist and motorist in mind as well as the surrounding environment - this means bold designs that grade separate the busiest movements for motorized traffic (as opposed to grade separating pedestrians and cyclists which can cause excessive displacement on their part).

    Speaking of turning the clock back, you either have a left turn for traffic or you don't (if the NTA are reading this! :D) - either provide a proper left lane and slip (30-60 deg configuration with zebra crossing) or else, eliminate the turning movement altogether and make some alternative arrangement for motor traffic. There's nothing worse than a badly designed junction - especially were a motorist might end up crossing a busy cycle track on the blind side from a stationary position. Any image of a Dutch junction I've seen seems to show motorists yielding to pedestrians/cyclists after making the turn (junctions and roundabouts) - they seem to have made the space for it and yes, I did see a left lane. Another way might be to phase in the left turning traffic with corresponding right movements, and the pedestrians/cyclists with the straight through traffic - did the NTA think of that???


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 13,991 Mod ✭✭✭✭ monument


    What's funny is that we had something like that in Ballymun - a traffic roundabout over pedestrian/cycle infrastructure - there were even ramps leading down from the roads like slip-roads - for pedestrians/cyclists that is:

    8418200a1720762849b191512460l.jpg

    I have driven the Ballymun Road earlier this year and what has replaced the roundabout is the most dangerous road design I've ever seen - erratic parked cars (could come out any time) on the side of a 6 lane DC with several pedestrians trying to cross - some jaywalking (like I do - I hate getting held up for too long on foot). The only thing for it now IMO is a traffic underpass with just local traffic and buses etc on top - the surface road could be reduced to 4 lanes while the paths could be widened.

    In general, we should be really be following (or surpassing) the Dutch instead of the latest gombeen pseudo-Dutch solutions in the form of Killiney Towers Roundabout etc. In my mind, if you want to see something close to what's Dutch, then pay a visit to the Wicklow Town Relief Road - the cycle tracks there are 2 way on both sides and are separated from the road by a grass verge - even at the roundabouts AFAIK. See ground level view (thanks to nordydan) of the Wicklow Town Relief Road. In short, if we're going to take cycling seriously, then we have to spend the dosh - like it or not.

    Turning the clock back on road design (taking out left lanes, left slips etc) is not the solution - What we need are sophisticated road designs (that would even surpass the Dutch) with the pedestrian, cyclist and motorist in mind as well as the surrounding environment - this means bold designs that grade separate the busiest movements for motorized traffic (as opposed to grade separating pedestrians and cyclists which can cause excessive displacement on their part).

    Speaking of turning the clock back, you either have a left turn for traffic or you don't (if the NTA are reading this! :D) - either provide a proper left lane and slip (30-60 deg configuration with zebra crossing) or else, eliminate the turning movement altogether and make some alternative arrangement for motor traffic. There's nothing worse than a badly designed junction - especially were a motorist might end up crossing a busy cycle track on the blind side from a stationary position. Any image of a Dutch junction I've seen seems to show motorists yielding to pedestrians/cyclists after making the turn (junctions and roundabouts) - they seem to have made the space for it and yes, I did see a left lane. Another way might be to phase in the left turning traffic with corresponding right movements, and the pedestrians/cyclists with the straight through traffic - did the NTA think of that???

    Err...

    If anybody from the NTA are reading this, could you please tell me are you also asking what's going on?

    Wicklow Town Relief Road and Dutch, you put those in the same line?!


  • Registered Users Posts: 557 ✭✭✭ annfield1978


    Dont think NTA have had anything out to tender for improvements around Ballymun, nearest scheme I can think of is the Swords QBC


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 Irish and Proud


    Dont think NTA have had anything out to tender for improvements around Ballymun, nearest scheme I can think of is the Swords QBC

    Sorry, I wasn't clear - the Ballymun Road was to do with Dublin City Council and Ballymun Regeneration - it just happens to be another example of turning the clock back - in my mind, they turned a 1960's DC (with dedicated cycle/pedestrian facilities) into a 'something like O'Connell Street' and is positively dangerous. I actually walked those underpasses a couple of times (at school going age) and had no problem in doing so. I just hate these 'turn the clock back' solutions which IMO are not solutions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    <snip>In my mind, if you want to see something close to what's Dutch, then pay a visit to the Wicklow Town Relief Road - the cycle tracks there are 2 way on both sides and are separated from the road by a grass verge - even at the roundabouts AFAIK. See ground level view (thanks to nordydan) of the Wicklow Town Relief Road.<snip>

    Err...

    If anybody from the NTA are reading this, could you please tell me are you also asking what's going on?

    Wicklow Town Relief Road and Dutch, you put those in the same line?!

    Please outline what exactly is wrong with the Wicklow Town Relief Road? I've been there and saw for myself - my first time there, I was taken aback by what seemed to be very excessive provision for cyclists - now I realize it's the Dutch model they seem to be getting their inspiration from.

    The ball is now in your court...


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,357 ✭✭✭✭ loyatemu


    Please outline what exactly is wrong with the Wicklow Town Relief Road? I've been there and saw for myself - my first time there, I was taken aback by what seemed to be very excessive provision for cyclists

    Its excessive provision for motorists as well, anytime I've used it (by bike or car) I've been the only person on it. Its an access route to a port with virtually no ships.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 Irish and Proud


    loyatemu wrote: »
    Its excessive provision for motorists as well, anytime I've used it (by bike or car) I've been the only person on it. Its an access route to a port with virtually no ships.

    There's no doubt IMO that the parish pump was alive and well there - I'm also curious as to where the actual port is - as far as I'm concerned, there is no port - I'd certainly wonder about the justification of the port access element of the scheme. About the road itself, I'm just talking about the provision made for the different transport modes (walking, cycling, motoring) over the entire scheme.

    Regards!


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 13,991 Mod ✭✭✭✭ monument


    Please outline what exactly is wrong with the Wicklow Town Relief Road? I've been there and saw for myself - my first time there, I was taken aback by what seemed to be very excessive provision for cyclists - now I realize it's the Dutch model they seem to be getting their inspiration from.

    The ball is now in your court...

    Fundamentally it seems to get widths right, segregation from the footpath level right, and also the size of footpaths right. It also gets end/start point transitions right which should not be something to write home about but it sadly is in an Irish context.

    Everything else is a bit messed up and that's without know how good or bad the traffic lights are. Fundamentally the segregation does not go anywhere.

    As said, it gets the transition from segregation to road right, but the first 200 meters is not only not segregated but it's for some reason dashed:

    219304.JPG

    Priority given over to tiny side roads a lot. In just 1.7km it give the right of way over to side roads and private entrances four times on one side and two on the other, plus one and two field entrances where where priority is ambiguous:

    219305.JPG

    Decent turn for those going contra-flow on the left of the image shown here, but poor for those going with-flow and turning right:

    219307.JPG

    No crossing to this more important side road, and no crossing point in both directions for at least 300 meters:

    219310.JPG

    The space in the centre refuge doesn't look to be great given the increased change of HGVs in the area:

    219311.JPG


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 13,991 Mod ✭✭✭✭ monument


    Also putting trees between a road and the footpaths and cycle tracks might not be a major problem but it is questionable from the perspective of perceived personal safety:

    219312.JPG

    It's worth saying: It's a lot better than a lot of Irish stuff, but it's not Dutch-like.

    EDIT: Also with the other and likely always busier section between the Marlton Road and the R750: The section follows most the the same flaws as above and also has worse problems with crossing (at roundabouts), and even more so does not go anywhere. Even tho it's very close to a lot of housing estates etc there's few even half decent connections to them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    Fundamentally it seems to get widths right, segregation from the footpath level right, and also the size of footpaths right. It also gets end/start point transitions right which should not be something to write home about but it sadly is in an Irish context.

    Everything else is a bit messed up and that's without know how good or bad the traffic lights are. Fundamentally the segregation does not go anywhere.

    As said, it gets the transition from segregation to road right, but the first 200 meters is not only not segregated but it's for some reason dashed:

    219304.JPG

    Priority given over to tiny side roads a lot. In just 1.7km it give the right of way over to side roads and private entrances four times on one side and two on the other, plus one and two field entrances where where priority is ambiguous:

    219305.JPG
    Firstly, great pictures I must say. On the above point, agreed! I'm all for de-prioritizing private property in general anyway - of course pedestrians and cyclists should have the right of way there - they should be treated in the context that they are on the main road. Also, not only should cars etc entering private property have to yield to pedestrians cyclists, they also should not be permitted to block the main road in doing so and should have to wait within a small left pocket before crossing.
    monument wrote: »
    Decent turn for those going contra-flow on the left of the image shown here, but poor for those going with-flow and turning right:

    219307.JPG
    Agreed, unless there is a crossing facility beforehand allowing pedestrian/cyclists to swap sides.
    monument wrote: »
    No crossing to this more important side road, and no crossing point in both directions for at least 300 meters:

    219310.JPG
    There should be a crossing point just before the bridge (probably not enough room on the bridge) and therefore, the right filter lane IMO. However, it should also be noted that cars turning left from the main road happen to cross the pedestrian/cycle way after making the turn. Although there is no left lane or slip, the most important thing is that a left turning car will have cleared the main road upon yielding (if pedestrians/cyclists going straight were phased in with straight ahead motor traffic) to pedestrians/cyclists, and that the cycle/pedestrian path is not on the blindside for motorists having initially made the left turn - that is IMO a very Dutch feature of road design.
    monument wrote: »
    The space in the centre refuge doesn't look to be great given the increased change of HGVs in the area:

    219311.JPG
    It's good in principle, but agree that it should be wider to give more comfort to pedestrians/cyclists.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    Also putting trees between a road and the footpaths and cycle tracks might not be a major problem but it is questionable from the perspective of perceived personal safety:

    219312.JPG

    It's worth saying: It's a lot better than a lot of Irish stuff, but it's not Dutch-like.

    EDIT: Also with the other and likely always busier section between the Marlton Road and the R750: The section follows most the the same flaws as above and also has worse problems with crossing (at roundabouts), and even more so does not go anywhere. Even tho it's very close to a lot of housing estates etc there's few even half decent connections to them.

    Agree that it's a hell of a lot better - also, a few changes in priority at junctions with small roads would bring it much more into line with the Dutch model. The images that you've post just remind me of images showing cycle infrastructure in Holland. I drove the through the roundabouts on the R750 link and the geometry is very continental IMO. Maybe the entry/exit islands should be lengthened and the crossings set a little further back so as to allow more visibility. On Dutch roundabouts, the cycle crossings are set fairly far back from the circulatory carriageways of roundabouts. Connections to housing estates should be prioritized. I also agree with your point on putting trees between the road and cycle/pedestrian facilities.

    You should send those images to the NTA! :D

    Regards!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 13,991 Mod ✭✭✭✭ monument


    Firstly, great pictures I must say.

    To be clear: All images from Google Street View.

    On the above point, agreed! I'm all for de-prioritizing private property in general anyway - of course pedestrians and cyclists should have the right of way there - they should be treated in the context that they are on the main road. Also, not only should cars etc entering private property have to yield to pedestrians cyclists, they also should not be permitted to block the main road in doing so and should have to wait within a small left pocket before crossing.

    Not just private property, all side roads. We're talking about Dutch design here, not Irish crap.

    And yes they should sometimes be permitted to "block" the main road for a few seconds. Turning lanes or pockets into every side road or private entrance would be the hight of daftness, and more so on a low volume road like the one in question.

    Agreed, unless there is a crossing facility beforehand allowing pedestrian/cyclists to swap sides.

    There's one for pedestrians and it's clear by the design compared to the other designs it's for pedestrians only.

    ...the most important thing is that a left turning car will have cleared the main road upon yielding (if pedestrians/cyclists going straight were phased in with straight ahead motor traffic) to pedestrians/cyclists - that is IMO a very Dutch feature of road design.

    As above, it's not important.
    Agree that it's a hell of a lot better - also, a few changes in priority at junctions with small roads would bring it much more into line with the Dutch model. The images that you've post just remind me of images showing cycle infrastructure in Holland. I drove the through the roundabouts on the R750 link and the geometry is very continental IMO. Maybe the entry/exit islands should be lengthened and the crossings set a little further back so as to allow more visibility. On Dutch roundabouts, the cycle crossings are set fairly far back from the circulatory carriageways of roundabouts. Connections to housing estates should be prioritized. I also agree with your point on putting trees between the road and cycle/pedestrian facilities.

    You should send those images to the NTA! :D

    Regards!

    I should stress: That it is a hell of a lot better but without good priority and high quality connections to both housing estates, places of work, schools and retail, it's all a bit of a waste. It's not just a connection to one or two places, it's the quality and directness of the connections and that the connections go almost everywhere. Making those connections into the middle of the town is a lot harder than adding nice looking cycle tracks to a ring road.

    Also clear priority at roundabouts for both peds and cyclists, which is respected, is more important than the locations of the crossings.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    To be clear: All images from Google Street View.
    Well it's still good to have them posted... :)
    monument wrote: »
    Not just private property, all side roads. We're talking about Dutch design here, not Irish crap.

    And yes they should sometimes be permitted to "block" the main road for a few seconds. Turning lanes or pockets into every side road or private entrance would be the hight of daftness, and more so on a low volume road like the one in question.

    If I had my way, there would be no private property with direct access to a new/upgraded main road - the small left pockets I'm talking about would be for the mere few cases that might fall through the net for some reason - small pockets could also be used for access to beaches, parks, playgrounds etc. Speaking of low traffic volume, roads such as the Wicklow Port (Port? :rolleyes:) Access wouldn't be built as I would crush the parish pump system - the actual Wicklow Town Relief Road (R750 link) is IMO a good idea.
    monument wrote: »
    There's one for pedestrians and it's clear by the design compared to the other designs it's for pedestrians only.

    Well it should be for cyclists too...
    monument wrote: »
    As above, it's not important.

    Well as a cyclist, it doesn't matter to you if traffic is held up - I'm not looking at this road design from a partisan point of view - I'm trying to be inclusive - also as a motorist, it's quite natural that I'm not going to be anti-car. IMO, the left turn design on the road in question is safer in that if motorists had to give way to pedestrians/cyclists, the cycle track would not be on the blindside as the motorists will already have made the turn (please refer to Holland) - maybe when a few of your cycling mates are killed or injured on these new NTA designs, you might appreciate that my ideas are not just car oriented. I certainly wouldn't relish the idea of knocking down a cyclist I didn't see coming from behind.

    monument wrote: »
    I should stress: That it is a hell of a lot better but without good priority and high quality connections to both housing estates, places of work, schools and retail, it's all a bit of a waste. It's not just a connection to one or two places, it's the quality and directness of the connections and that the connections go almost everywhere. Making those connections into the middle of the town is a lot harder than adding nice looking cycle tracks to a ring road.

    Agreed for the most part! - Regarding the centre of traditional towns, I'd be using a concentric modal model similar to what's used in some towns in France - the cars go around the town and in, but not through - the town centre is primarily for people (and presumably cyclists) - Vannes in Brittany for example.
    monument wrote: »
    Also clear priority at roundabouts for both peds and cyclists, which is respected, is more important than the locations of the crossings.

    Roundabouts that cater properly for all modes would be my priority - funny enough, the old Ballymun Roundabout did just that for a heavy traffic situation - I used it a long time ago myself. I have to reiterate - if we're going to take cycling seriously, we have to put the dosh in - simple as. BTW, I believe that in Holland, 59% commute by car and 25% commute by cycling - the other modes are quite insignificant (16% for the remainder). I'll try and dig up the information source later, but if we are going to follow the Dutch model, then we have to follow the Dutch model (not pseudo-Dutch nonsense) - that means properly catering for motorists and cyclists (and in the Irish case, pedestrians). Walking is IMO quite a popular mode in Ireland given it's flexibility and interchangeability with all modes including public transport, cycling and motoring.

    Regards!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,266 ✭✭✭ patrickbrophy18


    monument wrote: »
    Also putting trees between a road and the footpaths and cycle tracks might not be a major problem but it is questionable from the perspective of perceived personal safety:

    219312.JPG

    What exactly do you mean by perceived personal safety here?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭ Aard


    "Perceived" personal safety is a term used a lot in planning these days. While in theory such-and-such a solution may offer improved *actual* safety, that usually has little bearing on whether the person using it will *feel* safer. In the above example, with a row of trees seperating the bikes from the cars, there is increased actual safety (I would imagine). However, think of youself going to use that cycle-path. You might feel a bit "cut off" from the rest of the world around you-- if you fell, would a car driver notice? You're also out of the minds of the drivers, so if and when you eventually join the main carriageway, it's a bit all of a sudden (if there were no trees, then you'd be seen at all times). These are highly important design features that often dictate the success of these kind of schemes.

    A classic example of "perceived" safety in cycling is the safety-in-numbers idea. If you're the only cyclist on the road, you feel like it's you versus the cars. If, however, you're part of a stream of cyclists, then you feel safer since it's obvious to the cars that there are cyclists around and that they need to be vigilant.

    In the above example, I have a feeling that the trees there would be expected to grow rather tall, so eventually there'd only be the trunks seperating the bikes from the cars. Something which is actually rather appealing, imo. Let's just hope that it doesn't get condemned as a failure in the interim.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 13,991 Mod ✭✭✭✭ monument


    If I had my way, there would be no private property with direct access to a new/upgraded main road - the small left pockets I'm talking about would be for the mere few cases that might fall through the net for some reason - small pockets could also be used for access to beaches, parks, playgrounds etc. Speaking of low traffic volume, roads such as the Wicklow Port (Port? :rolleyes:) Access wouldn't be built as I would crush the parish pump system - the actual Wicklow Town Relief Road (R750 link) is IMO a good idea.

    Combined service road and cycle routes is one way of having no or at least limiting the amount of junctions on link roads. The Dutch use this solution.

    Well as a cyclist, it doesn't matter to you if traffic is held up - I'm not looking at this road design from a partisan point of view - I'm trying to be inclusive - also as a motorist, it's quite natural that I'm not going to be anti-car.

    You're getting carried away, I said it was not important on a road such as the road we're talking about.

    ...IMO, the left turn design on the road in question is safer in that if motorists had to give way to pedestrians/cyclists, the cycle track would not be on the blindside as the motorists will already have made the turn (please refer to Holland) - maybe when a few of your cycling mates are killed or injured on these new NTA designs, you might appreciate that my ideas are not just car oriented. I certainly wouldn't relish the idea of knocking down a cyclist I didn't see coming from behind.

    It's a basic Dutch design principle that when a motorist is pulling into or out of a side road across a cycle track they yield to cyclists. This happens unsignaled and without turning pockets where traffic volumes are higher than the road in question.

    You seem to be trying to claim motorists yielding to cyclists is more dangours for cyclists???? If so the Netherlands and Denmark kind of prove you wrong.

    Actually side road traffic yielding right of way to cyclists and people on foot is basic Irish principle, just interfered with heavily by car-centric road and traffic engineers.

    Agreed for the most part! - Regarding the centre of traditional towns, I'd be using a concentric modal model similar to what's used in some towns in France - the cars go around the town and in, but not through - the town centre is primarily for people (and presumably cyclists) - Vannes in Brittany for example.

    My point isn't what access should or should not be allowed anywhere.

    The point I was making was that for the cycling infrastructure of the link or relief road to be useful to notable numbers of people then there must be high quality links made to the places these people want to go.

    Roundabouts that cater properly for all modes would be my priority - funny enough, the old Ballymun Roundabout did just that for a heavy traffic situation - I used it a long time ago myself.

    The roundabout at Ballymun is gone for a good reasons. Ballymun was a pretty extrema case of that kind of design not working. This really show the car-centric mindset you have (and yes I have a bicycle centric view - you don't need to live at 221B Baker Street to figure out that one).

    See Aard's post above.

    I have to reiterate - if we're going to take cycling seriously, we have to put the dosh in - simple as.

    Sure, but agreeing on designs is another matter...

    BTW, I believe that in Holland, 59% commute by car and 25% commute by cycling - the other modes are quite insignificant (16% for the remainder). I'll try and dig up the information source later,

    For all trips across the Netherlands it is 48% car driver or passenger, 2% train, 3% bus/tram/metro, 19% walking, and 26% cycling.

    However not all of the Netherlands is cycling friendly and there is even in the Netherlands and urban / rural divide.

    Amsterdam claims around 50% bike usage, but that figure the city uses excludes people walking. When adjusted (see end of this post), the city is at a level of around 38% cycling, 25% for the car and public transport at 18%.

    It's also important to note that the Netherlands uses an "all trips" measurement rather than just a peak time measurement.
    but if we are going to follow the Dutch model, then we have to follow the Dutch model (not pseudo-Dutch nonsense) - that means properly catering for motorists and cyclists (and in the Irish case, pedestrians). Walking is IMO quite a popular mode in Ireland given it's flexibility and interchangeability with all modes including public transport, cycling and motoring.

    To be straight forward about it: If tomorrow the NTA scrapped its guidelines and told all councils in the Greater Dublin Area to implement best Dutch practice for cycling, pedestrians and BRT, then you'd be crying about it.

    You don't want the NTA model but you also don't want the Dutch model. You want your very own "pseudo-Dutch nonsense".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,514 ✭✭✭ PseudoFamous


    Please outline what exactly is wrong with the Wicklow Town Relief Road? I've been there and saw for myself - my first time there, I was taken aback by what seemed to be very excessive provision for cyclists

    I think you've pretty much nailed it in one. It's really excessive provision for cyclists. There are very few cycle paths in Wicklow town, particularly in high traffic residential areas where there may actually be some cyclists, and within the town itself (which is laid out incredibly badly for them) where cyclists may actually want to go.

    The R750/751* is pretty much devoid of cyclists. I've been travelling those roads often enough in the last 3 months, and I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen a cyclist on them. It's ridiculous to put cycle paths on roads that no cyclist will ever use, and Wicklow CC seems to have a hard on for doing it.

    Two other stupid examples of cycle paths in Wicklow are between two roundabouts (which are actually impossible to navigate safely on a bike) on the Wexford Road in Arklow, and on a random road circumnavigating the "Arklow Business/Enterprise Park". Neither stretch are long, nor do they lead to anywhere. As far as I know, there are literally no other cycle paths in the town. Why they spend money on isolated cycle paths that lead nowhere is beyond me.

    *Apparently the 751 is not the road I'm thinking of, nor is the one I'm thinking of labelled


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    Combined service road and cycle routes is one way of having no or at least limiting the amount of junctions on link roads. The Dutch use this solution.

    Ok, that seems sensible! This would certainly work IMO with relatively low volumes of motorists and cyclists - in this case, cyclists should have the priority on such service roads - at main junctions, I would only allow pestrians and cyclists to go through - they would be phased in with the main road they're following, so that they have equal priority - with left lanes provided, traffic turning left would be phased in with the corresponding right turn movements - this would be to completely eliminate conflict with pedestrians/cyclists. Motorists accessing service roads would do so midway between main junctions.
    monument wrote: »
    You're getting carried away, I said it was not important on a road such as the road we're talking about.

    Well Ok! I was really talking in general. However, I still think it is important that when a motorist is yielding to cyclists/pedestrians upon turning, the cycle/pedestrian path is properly visible to motorists as they're about to cross - having it coming up right beside you on the blind side is IMO dangerous. Also, most current NTA designs do not have any scope for 2 way cycling on both sides of the road.
    monument wrote: »
    It's a basic Dutch design principle that when a motorist is pulling into or out of a side road across a cycle track they yield to cyclists. This happens unsignaled and without turning pockets where traffic volumes are higher than the road in question.

    75% agree - however, with no pocket turning into a side road and aggressive drivers behind you, I just don't think that idea will work in Ireland where there's a relatively high volume of motor traffic and cyclists - I've been screaming for a clampdown on aggressive drivers - they shouldn't be on the road IMO
    monument wrote: »
    You seem to be trying to claim motorists yielding to cyclists is more dangours for cyclists???? If so the Netherlands and Denmark kind of prove you wrong.

    No! I said yielding to cyclists coming up on the blind side - what I want is a yield to pedestrian cyclists having made the turn where-upon the cycle/pedestrian path is relatively perpendicular to motorists (for side roads). At main signalized junctions, what I want is equal priority where straight through pedestrians/cyclists get the same priorty as straight through motorists - left turning traffic would only get the same priority as right turning traffic so as to eliminate conflict altogether.
    monument wrote: »
    Actually side road traffic yielding right of way to cyclists and people on foot is basic Irish principle, just interfered with heavily by car-centric road and traffic engineers.

    OK, that's 99% correct - a trained barrister told me that all traffic (including cyclists and pedestrians) on the main road had the legal right of way by default.

    monument wrote: »
    My point isn't what access should or should not be allowed anywhere.

    The point I was making was that for the cycling infrastructure of the link or relief road to be useful to notable numbers of people then there must be high quality links made to the places these people want to go.

    I don't dispute the above...
    monument wrote: »
    The roundabout at Ballymun is gone for a good reasons. Ballymun was a pretty extrema case of that kind of design not working. This really show the car-centric mindset you have (and yes I have a bicycle centric view - you don't need to live at 221B Baker Street to figure out that one).

    The roundabout wasn't perfect, but did you see the gombeenism that has taken it's place. My principle is: Grade Separation and Segregation is a good thing where there's excessive conflict, but it's the cars that must be Grade Separated and Segrated, not the pedestrians and cyclists - such should be left to their natural routes as much as is possible - also cars should be grade separated downwards rather than up so as to not injure visual amenity and block out natural light - such good design would cost more, but would be far better for everyone. My 'car centric' ideas would give the finger to current economic priciples and life sized monopoly game that's called the property system - the property system is outmoded and inflexible and does not serve people and certainly does not serve the environment. We really have to rethink the way we live - is it really serving us? I know I'm a hardcore modernist, but what I'd like to see is provision for everything, and yes Monument, I'm all for railways too - would love to see the Dublin underground - disgusted the Dart Underground is not going ahead - it's a no brainer - I'm all for Luas BXD too!
    monument wrote: »
    Sure, but agreeing on designs is another matter...

    Well yes, I think that's where our differences lie - it's not really our objectives, but our methods for getting things done - I don't think we'll ever agree on that.
    monument wrote: »
    For all trips across the Netherlands it is 48% car driver or passenger, 2% train, 3% bus/tram/metro, 19% walking, and 26% cycling.

    However not all of the Netherlands is cycling friendly and there is even in the Netherlands and urban / rural divide.

    Amsterdam claims around 50% bike usage, but that figure the city uses excludes people walking. When adjusted (see end of this post), the city is at a level of around 38% cycling, 25% for the car and public transport at 18%.

    It's also important to note that the Netherlands uses an "all trips" measurement rather than just a peak time measurement.

    Thanks for that - the about stats are good to know!



    monument wrote: »
    To be straight forward about it: If tomorrow the NTA scrapped its guidelines and told all councils in the Greater Dublin Area to implement best Dutch practice for cycling, pedestrians and BRT, then you'd be crying about it.

    You don't want the NTA model but you also don't want the Dutch model. You want your very own "pseudo-Dutch nonsense".

    Will finish this post later...


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 13,991 Mod ✭✭✭✭ monument


    Well Ok! I was really talking in general. However, I still think it is important that when a motorist is yielding to cyclists/pedestrians upon turning, the cycle/pedestrian path is properly visible to motorists as they're about to cross - having it coming up right beside you on the blind side is IMO dangerous.

    ...

    No! I said yielding to cyclists coming up on the blind side - what I want is a yield to pedestrian cyclists having made the turn where-upon the cycle/pedestrian path is relatively perpendicular to motorists (for side roads). At main signalized junctions, what I want is equal priority where straight through pedestrians/cyclists get the same priorty as straight through motorists - left turning traffic would only get the same priority as right turning traffic so as to eliminate conflict altogether.

    Yeah, Dutch and Danish designs are so dangerous! Wait... I don't think they are! :)

    Also, most current NTA designs do not have any scope for 2 way cycling on both sides of the road.

    The national cycle manual allows for a broad range of things, and there's nowhere I can see in it that disallows for two-way cycling on both sides of a road.

    75% agree - however, with no pocket turning into a side road and aggressive drivers behind you, I just don't think that idea will work in Ireland where there's a relatively high volume of motor traffic and cyclists - I've been screaming for a clampdown on aggressive drivers - they shouldn't be on the road IMO

    Stop trying to apply high volume ideas to every part of the country please.

    The roundabout wasn't perfect, but did you see the gombeenism that has taken it's place. My principle is: Grade Separation and Segregation is a good thing where there's excessive conflict, but it's the cars that must be Grade Separated and Segrated, not the pedestrians and cyclists - such should be left to their natural routes as much as is possible - also cars should be grade separated downwards rather than up so as to not injure visual amenity and block out natural light .....................

    Look, the Ballymun roundabout did not work -- trying to claim it just "wasn't perfect" is a joke.

    Equally around Wicklow, the volumes of cyclists and motorist is likely far from what is required to justify grade separated junctions. The location grade separated junctions could be justified include high volume M50 junctions -- but most of the designs used to date have been poor to dreadful.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    Yeah, Dutch and Danish designs are so dangerous! Wait... I don't think they are! :)

    Speaking of Dutch, have a look at this!!! :D:D:D

    roadplanning.jpg

    from a page on >>www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com<<!!!
    monument wrote: »
    The national cycle manual allows for a broad range of things, and there's nowhere I can see in it that disallows for two-way cycling on both sides of a road.

    The following is the common theme for the various signal junction designs from the >>National Cycle Manual<<:

    5615_LFT08_3D.jpg

    Please tell me how you can safely achieve 2 way cycling on both sides of the road with the above design - if you want proper cycling infrastructure that serves local as well as long distance cyclists, then there should be 2 way cycling available on both sides of the road - two way paths also allow cyclists to avoid awkward right turns once they can cross over midway between main junctions.
    monument wrote: »
    Stop trying to apply high volume ideas to every part of the country please.

    What are you on about? Of course I'm referring to the main urban centres - starting with Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford and Kilkenny - Kilkenny (due to it's size) could make a good pilot project for new sustainable transport innovations - it has a good substantial ring road (with plans for an almost complete o-ring) which is a start towards the European model.
    monument wrote: »
    Look, the Ballymun roundabout did not work -- trying to claim it just "wasn't perfect" is a joke.

    and are you telling me what's there now is working??? :rolleyes:
    monument wrote: »
    Equally around Wicklow, the volumes of cyclists and motorist is likely far from what is required to justify grade separated junctions. The location grade separated junctions could be justified include high volume M50 junctions -- but most of the designs used to date have been poor to dreadful.

    You should know well by now that I was only quoting Wicklow for design reference purposes and no I wouldn't be suggesting grade separation there - no need IMO. About the M50, the interchanges were designed before the NRA assumed the role of cycle track provision nationwide - AFAIK, cycling wasn't their responsibility and they fulfilled what was required then - what I'd do there now would be to join up sections of old road (where cycle provision is seriously deficient) with high grade cycleways using gentle curves for ramps (these should be minimized as much as is possible) as opposed to what they're expected to use currently - not good enough IMO. For example, I'd put in a gentle curved flyover for cyclists from the Liffey Valley SC across the N4 and M50 highways to the old road at Palmerston where a circular loop would be used for the decent - this IMO would be far superior to the rubbish the have to contend with today. The planners should also look at widening the Westlink and in doing so, include a high grade cycle/pedestrian facility.

    I just want to say that I have no interest in either auto-totalitarianism or auto-bashing - these positions are IMO childish. If Holland can provide for the car and bicycle, then why can't we??? It's a matter of appropriate use of each mode. Also, in making the country in general more cycling friendly, I'd do something about aggressive dogs coming onto the road (especially in rural areas), bike crime, teenage loitering and taunting of cyclists etc - these were the things that put me off cycling - something that I did for years. Now, cycling is taking off once again (even in rural areas) and that's why I've been changing my position - cycling now needs to be considered properly as well as pedestrians and motorists. I also think teenagers etc should be made cycle more and IMO, the minimum age for driving should seriously be looked at - more bikes please!!!

    BTW, I recently help my little nephew to cycle - not doing too well in being anti-cyclist! :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,852 ✭✭✭ SeanW


    monument wrote: »
    This really show the car-centric mindset you have (and yes I have a bicycle centric view - you don't need to live at 221B Baker Street to figure out that one).
    No indeed.

    There is a certain view among some cyclists, and you would seem to be among them, that being pro-cycling means you must be anti-motorist.

    Many people however, myself included, want solutions that benefit everyone. The Dutch roundabout in the O.P. certainly qualifies, as does to a certain extent even the "old" roundabout design, providing as it does segregated cycle paths around the RAB.

    I drive a lot these days and don't even own a bike, but I have campaigned in the past for public transport, when such things were better organised (including the DART Underground, which I still believe in).

    So if you want to build a cycle track, go for it! Same with commuter railway lines, and yes, things for motorists like motorways and whatnot (it's not as if we don't pay enough!).

    Meanwhile certain sections of the cycling community here believe in things like the redesign of the Killiney Towers Roundabout (with its confusing and dangerous array of online cycle lanes and 90 degree turns) that seem to have no purpose other the ****ing motorists over.

    With the exception of radical feminism and some other extreme movements, I am not aware of other groups whose general policy is "Advance our cause by demonising group X out of all proportion to reality"


Advertisement