Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Dutch bicycle roundabout above road junction
Options
Comments
-
-
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 you and your ilk 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"
You've been around these parts long enough to know the rule is that you play the ball and not the man. But you can't help it? Why not?
I'm anti-silliness. Like the silliness of around 100,000 people in Dublin driving between 0-4km to work or education. Or like the silliness of having a traffic light system so focused on moving traffic that j-walking is something most Dubliners do on mass without thinking. I'm also interested in moving people around in healthy and cost effective ways -- which benefits the individual and the state.
I've already said that the design in the opening post is great for some locations, but the "benefit everyone" idea overall -- where it means no transport mode loses in our current towns and cities -- is for the most part the stuff of dreams. Our current road set up in general is massively focused on motorised transport and redressing / balancing that in our current towns and cities will not be done without affecting anybody.
I'd be an out right liar and/or dreamer if I was to say otherwise.
But increasing the levels of cycling does have a wide range of benefits for people, communities and the state -- in general and overall, more benefits than any other mode of transport.Meanwhile you and your ilk 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"
The Killiney Towers Roundabout is far from perfect last time I seen it, but it's not in the least bit dangerous compared to what was there before. But, hey, according to you the council put it there for "no purpose other the ****ing motorists over" EDIT: ...is there any point in arguing with such an extreme view? And you are the one with the extreme view here, as the design at the Killiney Towers Roundabout still seems to be working, even if some small tweeks would help it.
How does the Killiney Towers Roundabout demonise motorists? Or if you're claiming I'm "demonising" motorists, how so?
0 -
I edited my post my post to take it down a notchYou've been around these parts long enough to know the rule is that you play the ball and not the man. But you can't help it? Why not?
In some places, for example pre-existing city streets, that may well be true, but not in the wide variety of settings the extremist cycling lobby seems to believe.I've already said that the design in the opening post is great for some locations, but the "benefit everyone" idea overall -- where it means no transport mode loses in our current towns and cities -- is for the most part the stuff of dreams. Our current road set up in general is massively focused on motorised transport and redressing / balancing that in our current towns and cities will not be done without affecting anybody.
I'd be an out right liar and/or dreamer if I was to say otherwise.
What other possible reason could there be for redesigning a roundabout so that it requires 90 degree turns to enter/exit?How does the Killiney Towers Roundabout demonise motorists?
Perhaps I'm confusing you with others in your ranks, but every time an environmental leftist/cycling lobbyist shows up on these boards, it's to demand that motorists carry GPS trackers to report to the guards on speeding, or that new housing estates should be built in as motorist-hostile a way as possible, or that a town choked with traffic shouldn't have a bypass built for it because the proposed bypass would come within 10 miles of a 15 mile buffer zone around a national monument. Or something.Or if you're claiming I'm "demonising" motorists, how so?0 -
In some places, for example pre-existing city streets, that may well be true, but not in the wide variety of settings the extremist cycling lobby seems to believe.
Most of what the cycling lobby tells me is there's no space will be given over to cyclists in cities as there's such a lack of will to do so.
But talking about extremists....What other possible reason could there be for redesigning a roundabout so that it requires 90 degree turns to enter/exit.
I don't recall motorists turning at 90 degrees and looking at YouTube:
Not a 90 degree turn:
No 90 degree turn off:
The next turn, no 90 degree turn:
I can't see one 90 degree turn on that roundabout. Are you sure you're not just making stuff up?
Are you sure you're not being an extremist?Perhaps I'm confusing you with others in your ranks, but every time an environmental leftist/cycling lobbyist shows up on these boards, it's to demand that motorists carry GPS trackers to report to the guards on speeding, or that new housing estates should be built in as motorist-hostile a way as possible, or that a town choked with traffic shouldn't have a bypass built for it because the proposed bypass would come within 15 miles of a 10 mile buffer zone around a national monument. Or something.
Perhaps you're confusing the topic at hand? Perhaps you have to rely on trying to dismiss people with labels (name calling) because you find it hard to put across your views?
But if you're talking about Slane, you seem to think a village is a town. Again, is this another example of you making things up to suit your extremist view?0 -
In some places, for example pre-existing city streets, that may well be true, but not in the wide variety of settings the extremist cycling lobby seems to believe.
Most of what the cycling lobby tells me is there's no space will be given over to cyclists in cities as there's such a lack of will to do so.
But talking about extremists....What other possible reason could there be for redesigning a roundabout so that it requires 90 degree turns to enter/exit.
I don't recall motorists turning at 90 degrees and looking at YouTube:
Not a 90 degree turn:
No 90 degree turn off:
The next turn, no 90 degree turn:
I can't see one 90 degree turn on that roundabout. Are you sure you're not just making stuff up?
Are you sure you're not being an extremist?Perhaps I'm confusing you with others in your ranks, but every time an environmental leftist/cycling lobbyist shows up on these boards, it's to demand that motorists carry GPS trackers to report to the guards on speeding, or that new housing estates should be built in as motorist-hostile a way as possible, or that a town choked with traffic shouldn't have a bypass built for it because the proposed bypass would come within 15 miles of a 10 mile buffer zone around a national monument. Or something.
Perhaps you're confusing the topic at hand? Perhaps you have to rely on trying to dismiss people with labels (name calling) because you find it hard to put across your views?
But if you're talking about Slane, you seem to think a village is a town. Again, is this another example of you making things up to suit your extremist view?
I was at the Killiney Towers Roundabout myself and no, they're not as generous as the images suggest - that camera IMO has a long lense. Now, the turns are not 90 deg. either but are rather tight - one or two of them are even tight for cyclists. Solution might be to leave the cycle track as is (except the tight turns) and construct a smaller proper roundabout further in with proper perpendicular yields to cyclists upon exiting - that IMO would be closer to the Dutch model - I would use continental geometry, but not like the NTA specs.
About Slane, I'm a Meathman, so don't even go there - I don't think you know what you're talking about - 22 people have died there. I don't think it's even suitable for cyclists - they probably need the bypass too given the steep ascents/descents.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I saw some pics on Google maps and they looked very tight - at least to me. I used to live in Dublin, and on a couple of occasions I drove out to Dalkey and that area, before these works were done, and if this is the same RAB I remember, the old version was quite big and worked quite well, from a motorist POV, but could have used better cycling facilities, to be sure.I can't see one 90 degree turn on that roundabout. Are you sure you're not just making stuff up?
But since the works were done, while I haven't been back that way, I had read on these boards that the roundabout was a near-constant source of traffic jams, and that heavy vehicles like buses and lorries were having difficulties navigating the tight turns.
Let's see - I've campaigned for the DART Underground, fully support the construction of cycle lanes and the like, but when it comes to designing things especially from scratch, I want things that benefit everyone.Are you sure you're not being an extremist?
By your book, that makes me an AA stooge.
I oppose building housing estates like careless children throwing houses onto a monopoly board, that makes life as difficult as possible for motorists. (But the Essex design is the greatest thing since sliced bread.) (Iwannahurl)
I also oppose stuff like forcing motorists to carry GPS recorders to send every movement to Big Brother (cyclopath2001)
And various other similar anti-motorist crap like building roundabouts with tight corners that cause traffic jams for no reason, automatic fault laws would see "the bigger vehicle" be held fully responsible in all accidents regardless of cause or actual fault.
Only in the warped mind of a cycling fanatic would this make a person an "extremist."
So that's all their problems sorted then :rolleyes: I'm sure.I don't need to ever write a reply to that, somebody else has here: http://www.meathchronicle.ie/opinion/letters/articles/2011/04/13/4004252-no-deaths-in-slane-since-traffic-calming/
The letter you linked to also makes sure to paint the people of Slane as some kind of vile evil monsters, floating their dead like zombies in some nefarious plot to build a needless road that will demolish Newgrange or something, all for no benefit. All they're missing out there in Slane it seems is someone like this
and a Sphinx cat.
And you call me an extremist. You've got cojones, I'll give you that!0 -
<snip>I don't need to ever write a reply to that, somebody else has here: http://www.meathchronicle.ie/opinion/letters/articles/2011/04/13/4004252-no-deaths-in-slane-since-traffic-calming/
I really can't let that one go...
...that article is the greatest load of rubbish - OK, there were no deaths, but:
This "minor" :rolleyes: accident happened in 2009 - I remember it well - it caused outrage in Slane and led to the major push for the bypass in recent years. It's a miracle that no one died - people were in those cars you know. The image was posted on http://www.magicmum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=3149496. It's AFAIK what lead to the establishment of http://www.bypassslane.com/!
BTW, the article is an opinion piece by someone living in the inner city! :rolleyes:0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Ya better be careful there Patrick, or you might be called an extremist too :rolleyes:
My questioning if you were an extremist came from you first calling people extremists and then you making up stuff to support your position.
Irish and Proud wrote: »...that article is the greatest load of rubbish...
This "minor" :rolleyes: accident happened in 2009 - I remember it well - it caused outrage in Slane and led to the major push for the bypass in recent years. It's a miracle that no one died - people were in those cars you know. The image was posted on http://www.magicmum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=3149496. It's AFAIK what lead to the establishment of http://www.bypassslane.com/!
Question:
Is it one notable accident and no deaths in over 10 years? And that's compared to 22 deaths in the previous 20 years?
If so, it seems like the traffic calming has worked to a large extent in saving life. Regardless of what anybody thinks of a bypass, would beefing up the traffic calming not be a good idea while everybody is waiting?Irish and Proud wrote: »BTW, the article is an opinion piece by someone living in the inner city! :rolleyes:
Great, so are we only allowed to comment on things that happen in our own areas? It would mean a lot of people here can't talk about a lot of things that happen inside the M50... and should the local newspaper not have known better to publish a factually incorrect letter on such an emotive issue?patrickbrophy18 wrote: »I have to agree with SeanW that junction tightening at Killiney Towers Roundabout has made it significantly harder for buses to negotiate their way in and out of junctions. While the junctions may not be 90 degree junctions, they are far from being friendly for vehicles exceeding 11 meters in length.
In other threads you were unable to answer how Dublin Bus's low level of buses using the roundabout were unable to manage on a daily bases. Do you have an answer yet?patrickbrophy18 wrote: »The purpose of the mountable cobble-lock buffer from the roundabout center presents it's own dangers. This is because the hind axle of long vehicles inherently becomes way too close to the traffic island itself which increases the likelihood of jack-knifing.
Err... now you're claiming the centre island which is designed to take large trucks etc, will cause a jack-knifing?patrickbrophy18 wrote: »Irish and Proud took the words right out of my mouth by describing such "solutions:rolleyes:" as turn the clock back. Don't get me wrong monument, I do think that it is great that the government are actively encouraging cycling as a mode of transport. However,
However the next think you say is a nonsense reason why you would not promote cycling...patrickbrophy18 wrote: »mechanically driven modes of transport (such as trains, trams, buses, trucks and cars) are capable of reaching their destination in a much smaller amount of time than a bicycle.
Not true. From the Department of Transport:- Data from the 2006 Census reveals that, for journeys within the Dublin Canal Ring, cyclists reached an average speed of 12 kph compared to just 15kph for cars.
- For trips within the M50, the 2006 Census reveals average speed for cyclists of 14kph compared to 18 kph for cars.
As for buses, trams, and trains: Add in the time to:- to get to the station/stop
- from the station/stop
- waiting time for buses/trams/trains
...and cycling is a bit faster or a bit slower depending on trip - it compares very well for trips around and under 9km (ie the bulk of trips). The difference for the state is that investment in cycling costs a lot less than public transport and on going costs are tiny for cycling compared for rail or buses.
In the meanwhile, nothing compares to the health benefits of cycling and the return that can have for the state in health care savings.patrickbrophy18 wrote: »While I am somewhat impressed with the OP's picture, the one criticism I might make towards the layout of it is that the lower deck has been turned into a crossroads. This is because the free-flow element has been removed. As per SeanW's assertion of "benefit everyone", a double-decker roundabout is the ultimate solution given that they enable a free-flow mechanism for all modes of transport. In this case, pedestrians don't have to look left or right at all when traversing the roundabout as they would be passing over/under(depending on which level is allocated to cyclists and pedestrians and the level allocated to motorised traffic) the flow of motorised traffic. For the same reason, cyclists wouldn't have to worry about being cut off by motorised traffic. Ergo, no tightening of junctions is necessary for motorised traffic. YAY!:D
The 'bottom deck' is an increase in capacity.I saw some pics on Google maps and they looked very tight - at least to me.
The new design isn't on Google, at least it was not last night.But since the works were done, while I haven't been back that way, I had read on these boards that the roundabout was a near-constant source of traffic jams, and that heavy vehicles like buses and lorries were having difficulties navigating the tight turns.
Patrick is quite fond of exaggeration.Let's see - I've campaigned for the DART Underground, fully support the construction of cycle lanes and the like, but when it comes to designing things especially from scratch, I want things that benefit everyone.
By your book, that makes me an AA stooge.
What has Dart Underground got to do with what happens to roads?
Conor Faughnan cycles, he also seems supportive of Dart etc, and I would not call him an "AA stooge".I oppose building housing estates like careless children throwing houses onto a monopoly board, that makes life as difficult as possible for motorists. (But the Essex design is the greatest thing since sliced bread.) (Iwannahurl)
I also oppose stuff like forcing motorists to carry GPS recorders to send every movement to Big Brother (cyclopath2001)
And various other similar anti-motorist crap like building roundabouts with tight corners that cause traffic jams for no reason, automatic fault laws would see "the bigger vehicle" be held fully responsible in all accidents regardless of cause or actual fault.
Only in the warped mind of a cycling fanatic would this make a person an "extremist."
I guess you're an extremist on one small level because you see anything from tight corners (standard practice of making urban roads safer) and you can't even see the benefit in restricting the dominance of cars in areas which should be free for children to play in!
Just because somebody is a "cycling fanatic" or an extremist in their own ways, does not exclude you too from being an extremist. Extremists tent to not think they are extremists.And you call me an extremist. You've got cojones, I'll give you that!
In a question, I think I implied you were may be an extremist around about the time you were making up stuff to support your apparent extremist views.0 - Data from the 2006 Census reveals that, for journeys within the Dublin Canal Ring, cyclists reached an average speed of 12 kph compared to just 15kph for cars.
-
Problem is, if the F*ck Slane brigade has their way, there will NEVER be a bypass.If so, it seems like the traffic calming has worked to a large extent in saving life. Regardless of what anybody thinks of a bypass, would beefing up the traffic calming not be a good idea while everybody is waiting?
No, but it helps if you're an actual stakeholder, like the people who live in Slane are. But even if one is not a stakeholder, it would add some credibility to admit that maybe, just possibly those who actually are stakeholders, are not evil cheap imitations of demonic masterminds from a horror movie or a James Bond film. Something our letter writer and those in his camp might consider.Great, so are we only allowed to comment on things that happen in our own areas? It would mean a lot of people here can't talk about a lot of things that happen inside the M50...
It's the beauty of free speech - when someone is as transparently full of shoite as "Save Newgrange" is, the paper giving them a platform is as good as giving them rope to hang themselves.and should the local newspaper not have known better to publish a factually incorrect letter on such an emotive issue?
My bad, I meant Google Images.The new design isn't on Google, at least it was not last night.
I saw some images of the new RAB in blogs and the like and it looked like all the approach roads end in T-junctions at the roundabout. Suggested that the turns were ridiculously sharp.
I used this to underscore my claim to be interested in things that benefit everyone and D.U. definitely qualifies. Hence, my support for it.What has Dart Underground got to do with what happens to roads?
Quite true, and I suspect you should know all too well.Just because somebody is a "cycling fanatic" or an extremist in their own ways, does not exclude you too from being an extremist.
*Holds up a mirror to monument*Extremists tent to not think they are extremists.
And I am implying that you are an extremist because ... well, Quod Erat Demonstradum.In a question, I think I implied you were may be an extremist around about the time you were making up stuff to support your apparent extremist views.0 -
Problem is, if the F*ck Slane brigade has their way, there will NEVER be a bypass.
That's not what I asked. I asked: Regardless of what anybody thinks of a bypass, would beefing up the traffic calming not be a good idea while everybody is waiting?...are not evil cheap imitations of demonic masterminds from a horror movie or a James Bond film. Something our letter writer and those in his camp might consider.
Or if people did not use a past high level of death and then trivialise the issue by bring up films.I used this to underscore my claim to be interested in things that benefit everyone and D.U. definitely qualifies. Hence, my support for it.
Things that "benefit everyone" a lot easier on rail, than on road where a balance needs to be struck. As I've said before, when rebalancing our roads every mode cannot win, more so in towns and cities, and trying to claim otherwise is silly.Quite true, and I suspect you should know all too well.
*Holds up a mirror to monument*
And I am implying that you are an extremist because ... well, Quod Erat Demonstradum.
Well, just as long as we can agree that you are an extremist.
IF saying following the Dutch and Danes is no bad thing, then sure, I'm also an extremist.0 -
-
That's not what I asked. I asked: Regardless of what anybody thinks of a bypass, would beefing up the traffic calming not be a good idea while everybody is waiting?
You're talking about very steep gradients - what traffic calming do you propose - ramps, road narrowing and chicanes would be seriously asking for trouble - the speed limit there is already 30kph - the only extra thing that could be done IMO are average speed cameras measuring vehicles going through the village.Or if people did not use a past high level of death and then trivialise the issue by bring up films.
I've driven through there recently and it's dangerous - simple as. The traffic in Slane can be extremely heavy at times - people living there have to contend with not one, but two main roads through their village (N2 and N51) and both with steep gradients (N51 from Drogheda has a very steep section) - that's no way for the people of Slane to live as far as I'm concerned!Things that "benefit everyone" a lot easier on rail, than on road where a balance needs to be struck. As I've said before, when rebalancing our roads every mode cannot win, more so in towns and cities, and trying to claim otherwise is silly.
Re-balancing on our roads also means that the improved roads must work for everyone - there's this >>new scheme<< near Sandyford for example - bigger roads with pedestrian/cycle facilities they boast - but certainly not better IMO.
Take this >>proposed junction<< (PDF File - 1.9MB) for example. This is what's proposed for the current Leopardstown Roundabout. To me, their main priorities in the overall scheme are (not in any particular order):
1) M50 entry/egress traffic;
2) Cycling Facilities;
3) New Road Linkages from Sandyford to Leopardstown and Leopardstown to Murphystown (including cycle tracks).
The said junction won't work well IMO - most left turning traffic and pedestrians seem to be an afterthought and will this will ultimately impact on the effectiveness of 1 & 2 above:
1) Complete omission of 3 left lanes and slips (I've already stated my problem with left slip omission) - in fact, at least one of these turns (bottom left) could be removed completely as there's a proposed link road (Burton Hall Road Extension - commencement due next month) that will do more or less exactly the same job. The left turn on the opposite corner (top right) could probably bite the dust too as it would link 2 relatively parallel roads heading for the N11 Stillorgan Road - the funny thing is that neither of these turns have corresponding right filters, so is there really a need for these left turns at all. That's 2 down (literally), 1 to go (top left). This remaining left turn is probably required - now the focus of need shifts to cycle tracks - the ones on Burton Hall Road (I've already compromised the motorist). There is already one new cycle track along part of the old Harcourt line linking Sandyford to Leopardstown Road - there will be another in connection with the Burton Hall Road Extension (not Burton Hall Road, but perpendicular to it) - another thing is that the cycle tracks on the Burton Hall Road itself (left arm) lead to an at grade crossing with the Luas and on one of it's sharper curves - hardly a safe thing for cyclists. The cycle tracks on that stretch should IMO be omitted and the left lane from Burton Hall Road to Brewery Road can go ahead without any problem (subject to signals to allow cyclists to travel along the Brewery Road safely. So as a cyclist, you win some and lose some - cyclists would now have less left turning traffic to contend with on some of the other cycle tracks - one of my main reasons for the compete omission of 2 left turns (other reason is for re-alignment of pedestrian crossings - see #3 below).
2) Excessive crossing distance for pedestrians - especially those with mobility issues - on a tangential note, having visited Killiney Towers Roundabout, a very worrying thing was the vulnerability of old people, people with mobility issues (MS etc) etc on that Roundabout. Is there a right wing element creeping into urban road design - survival of the fittest? Buses forced to negotiate tight corners can't be good for old people either. I am devising road designs myself where pedestrians have no more than 2 lanes of traffic to cross at a time, but yet with signal phases long enough to allow 85% of pedestrians to comfortably clear a main road completely. Back to this junction - just look at the approach from Leopardstown Road West - how the hell are a reasonable percentage of people with mobility issues supposed to clear those 4 lanes in one go (that's 4 x 3.25m = 13m) - there should be an island in the middle - with the left slip (bottom left) gone, there's ample room under the Luas flyover to broaden out the road to accommodate the extra island - the main median AFAIK is occupied by a bridge pier. A little strip of land along Leopardstown Road West might be required. My real preference would be for grade separation of one of these busy traffic movements under the junction (completely) and out of the way - for pedestrians and cyclists, business as usual but with less traffic to contend with.
3) Staggered Pedestrian Crossings causes too much deflection and would probably force pedestrians to wait a second time (for traffic) in the refuge island (centre each arm) thereby wasting time. This IMO will encourage more jaywalking. These crossings should be aligned straight across the road to allow at least 85% of pedestrians to cross the entire road in one phase comfortably - the refuge island would be primarily for people with mobility issues. The propose layout, as it stands, is IMO designed to put people firmly in their place - the lack of left slips would exacerbate this situation - left slips with pedestrian priority (zebra crossing) would be preferable where ever significant left turning traffic is accommodated.Well, just as long as we can agree that you are an extremist.
IF saying following the Dutch and Danes is no bad thing, then sure, I'm also an extremist.
Look, we had auto-totalitarianism in the 1980's - it didn't work, then we had a spell of auto-bashing in the 1990's - it too didn't work - traffic is still as mad as hell in the city despite the cutbacks in road building there and the upgrading of the bus service. There are two things that actually worked well: (1) Luas Green Line (no need for government subsidy) and (2) Dublin Port Tunnel - with the pricing policy, it seems that Dublin has managed to build an inner urban motorway that actually works! :eek: The point I'm making is that we have got to see what works, where it works, when it works etc. In general, I think Luas is the way to go inside the M50 - I've even been drawing plans for a third Luas line - they're in my drawer actually. If there was a Luas Line from the Northside with a good Park 'n' Ride near the M50, I'd visit the city centre more often.
In short however, Cars are good for certain things, Cycling is good for certain things, Trains ", Buses ", Walking " - even Boats - look at New York etc. I also think it's time to scrap this stupid "Car Free Day" and replace it with something much more positive - "Sustainable Transport Day". Instead of banning cars (or trying! :rolleyes:) - promote public transport by allowing free rides that day and if the crowds come, put on more buses/trains where possible - promote walking and cycling - maybe free bikes with a deposit and let people try it out etc. Cycling is taking off and will replace many car journeys, but the car will remain an important mode along with the renaissance of cycling.
Regards!0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
patrickbrophy18 wrote: »Give a few examples of such towns and cities. These cities and towns must be very backward if they think reducing public transport speed makes sense.
Councils across Dublin, London, Paris etc think it's acceptable to implement traffic calming along roads which sees medium to regular use by public transportation.patrickbrophy18 wrote: »"More than able:rolleyes:"....struggling is the word I would use!
They seem to be able to keep up their struggle!patrickbrophy18 wrote: »Cars are far more capable of 15kph as the maximum engine speed of most cars and other mechanically driven transport is well above 90kph.
For what we're talking about, it does not matter what cars are capable of doing in theory on open roads -- what matters is the actual average speeds cars travel at. Is there any chance of you dealing with reality as shown in the census figures?patrickbrophy18 wrote: »You are probably referring to factors such as traffic lights and traffic calming which cripple the performance of mechanically driven transport making them go a small fraction of their maximum speed. In such case, a bicycle would win.
You'll find that main thing "which cripples the performance of mechanically driven transport" is too much mechanically drive traffic. You'll also find that traffic lights were a by-product of mechanically drive traffic.patrickbrophy18 wrote: »As such, rounding down the speeds to cyclist level is regressive. With these speed reductions comes a much longer (time wise) journey from A to B.
Where have you seen me "rounding down the speeds"?
What speed reductions are you talking about?patrickbrophy18 wrote: »No. I'm saying that existing roads shouldn't be made tighter or less negotiable to become playground extensions which you seem to want. Many towns get business from motorised traffic and moves like tighter roundabouts and corners will strangle arteries leading to towns. Traffic calming should only be kept to cul de sacs and side roads which aren't used by public transport.
In the bit where you quoted me, I was talking about housing estates and you said you wanted to keep cars dominant over children. Are you changing that positing now?
What public transport has to do with your average housing estate is anybody guess.patrickbrophy18 wrote: »What do the Dutch do around historic cores like Dalkey?
A mix of the following:- Add a mix of cyclist access-only streets, full pedestrian-only streets, or very limited access street for cars, or shared use which has about the same effect or more of an effect as limited access
- Add traffic calming
- Make previous through routes cul de sacs for cars but allow bicycles to use them as through routes
- Make two-way streets one-way for cars and two-way for bicycles
- Make streets 30km/h or lower by design and by speed limit
0 -
More traffic calming won't fix Slane's problem, that of a national road going down steep hills, around severe corners and across a 400 year old, 1 lane bridge. More traffic calming would likely just make Slane an even bigger bottleneck, keep the place even more choc-o-block with traffic that has zero reason to be there.That's not what I asked. I asked: Regardless of what anybody thinks of a bypass, would beefing up the traffic calming not be a good idea while everybody is waiting?
Nothing but a bypass will fix this and only an extremist could claim otherwise.
I'm not a Slane resident, and the "cheap movie villian" aspect was what came to my mind when I read your friends letter. I speak as I find, and your friend while not explicitly comparing the people of Slane to cheap horror movie villians reanimating their dead like zombies, it seemed to me the impression he wanted to leave.Or if people did not use a past high level of death and then trivialise the issue by bring up films.
Which is why, surely, it makes sense to focus on this.Things that "benefit everyone" a lot easier on rail,
That is true, but far less often than cycling extremists would have us believe.than on road where a balance needs to be struck. As I've said before, when rebalancing our roads every mode cannot win, more so in towns and cities, and trying to claim otherwise is silly.
No, I was making a thinly veiled hint that you are in NO position to be calling anyone else an extremist ... effectively, that you are doing this:Well, just as long as we can agree that you are an extremist.monument wrote:
0 -
-
-
-
-
patrickbrophy18 wrote: »You're twisting and over exaggerating my points.
No, I'm not twisting anything.
You're making a very invalid comparisons topatrickbrophy18 wrote: »Many of the roads in France have synchronized traffic lights which brings progress on such roads surprisingly close to the behavior of free flow.
As already stated about Dublin: All the synchronization in the world can't help when roads are over the capacity which allows for free flow.patrickbrophy18 wrote: »Again, if you looked at the attached map, you'll see that side roads and cul de sacs (the housing estates your talking about) are where I would encourage traffic calming. However, the roads marked in cyan and blue are connector roads and main roads (not housing estates) because they connect areas of business. Stop twisting my statements by playing stupid.
We'll just make it very clear for anybody else reading:
I said:I was talking about housing estates and you said you wanted to keep cars dominant over children. Are you changing that positing now?
You replied:I'm not changing my "positing (I think you mean position)".
Your map also shows "Cyan: Connector or distributor roads" in the Pearse Estate and on fairly narrow residential roads.patrickbrophy18 wrote: »Again, twisting my statements.
If you don't want people to think you're making a correlation between two things, it'd be advisable that you avoid random and unconnected statements at the end of a direct reply.patrickbrophy18 wrote: »It's the laws of physics which is why I keep bringing up the word clearance. It's quite simple really. If you bring the paths of traffic in opposite directions closer together, there is a higher chance of a head on collision.
So, forget the experience of Paris, Copenhagen, Belgium, the Netherlands, and, to a limited extent, even Dublin, which shows contra-flow is safe!
You know better! Is that it?patrickbrophy18 wrote: »I would consider cul de sacs housing estates. However most (if not all) of the roads marked in cyan (although residential) are through roads which are surrounded by medium to large business centers and warehouses. So, access for HGVs and buses is a must. Besides, the majority of roads marked in cyan are indeed wide enough to have cars pass each other out.
Just because near by areas need HGV access does not mean all of the streets you have marked need HGV access. On the majority of the roads in cyan, there is no need to plan for everyday HGV access and with most of them HGVs should go around them.
Dublin Bus would be a far better and effective service it tomorrow it removed it self from serving housing estates and other narrow residential road -- and before anybody says it, there's far more effective ways of providing local transport for old people. But the Irish political world won't allow that.patrickbrophy18 wrote: »I'm sure the businesses would love that!:rolleyes:
Backstreets are where traffic calming belongs. NOT main streets.
You asked what the Dutch would do and I was making it clear what they would do. No need for the rolling eyes!
Businesses originally objected to the pedestrian areas around O'Connell Street in Dublin -- and the same thing happens internationally again and again, for example:
In Copenhagen:Forty years ago {it's fifty years ago this year}, when the pedestrianisation process began, the shopkeepers in central Copenhagen were unconvinced and apprehensive. ‘We are not Italians, we are Danes. It will never work here.’ ‘Shops will die off if there are no more cars.’ ‘The climate over here is not suitable for mingling in the streets.’
These were just some of the objections they raised. ‘There was literally no culture of public space and public life; we used to sit at home and have a black coffee at the dinner table,’ recalls Lars Gemzøe. ‘However, since then,
things have changed a lot in this city. When the first street was closed to traffic as an experiment, people found it interesting, and then came the next car-free street.
The critical shopkeepers soon realised that it was working to their advantage, and people discovered that they liked to explore their city on foot. Because the city council made it gradually more difficult to drive and park,
visitors had time to get used to the idea that it was too complicated to take the car, and took the bus or bicycle instead. And so the centre of Copenhagen underwent a dramatic change from a car-orientated to a people orientated place.’
And in Utrecht:The Utrecht pedestrian zone is a large area of car free streets in the historic city center. First in 1965 and from November 1968 on a larger scale, the narrow streets were closed to car traffic on the busiest shopping days. This experiment made the streets car free on Wednesdays and Saturdays which were -and still are- important market days. There was a lot of opposition from shop owners but the city went through with the plans for a permanent car ban. From 1971 the streets were permanently car free and they were redesigned. Side walks were removed and the streets were transformed to streets for pedestrians only. All opposition has since vanished. The area has been car free for 40 years now. The area is livable and a commercial success. It is one of the most attractive inner city shopping areas of the country.
etcpatrickbrophy18 wrote: »Backstreets are where traffic calming belongs. NOT main streets
As above, Grafton Street was once viewed as a "main street" for cars.patrickbrophy18 wrote: »It's becoming clearer to me by the day that you are against any mode of mechanically driven transport.
You asked what the Dutch do, I made it clear what they do and when you don't like the answer you attack me rather than the Dutch!?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJqX9LMk0RA
Advertisement